Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

170 Mo. 13

State v. Littrell

Supreme Court of Missouri

Decided October 27, 1902

Supreme Court of Missouri · decided 1902-10-27

— Ho». J. P. Butler, Judge. The court erred in giving instruction numbered one on behalf of the State, because said instruction does not contain the elements constituting the crime of grand larceny. An instruction which does not require the jury to find that the goods were taken and carried away with fraudulent and felonious intent, omits an essential element of larceny.

Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently June 1912

5 state decisions

Relies on State v. Rutherford · State v. Lackland · State v. Moore

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Reversed AND remaNded · Decided 1902-10-27

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

BURGESS, J.

¶1At the February term, 1902, of the circuit court of Chariton county, defendants were convicted of grand larceny and their punishment fixed at two years imprisonment, respectively, in the penitentiary, under an information theretofore filed by the prosecuting attorney of said county in the office of the clerk of the circuit court charging them with having on December 10,1901, at said county, unlawfully and felon-iously stolen thirty-five dollars of lawful money of the value of thirty-five dollars, and two pairs of spectacles of the value of one dollar per pair, and one pocketknife of the value of one dollar, all of the aggregate value of thirty-five dollars, all of the money being the personal property of one John Adams.

¶2The conviction was for stealing the money alleged to have been stolen. They appeal.

¶3It is only necessary to a disposal of the case by this court to pass upon one question, and that is with respect to instruction numbered one, given by the court on behalf of the State which defendants insist is erroneous in that it does not require the jury to find that the money *15was wrongfully and fraudulently taken and carried away by the defendants with the felonious intent to convert the same to their own use, and to make it their own property without the consent of its owner.

¶4’ ■ The instruction reads as follows:

“1. The court instructs the jury that if you believe from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendants, Charles Littrell and George Proffitt, at the county of Chariton, in the State of Missouri, on or about December 10, A. D. 1901, and within three years next before the filing of the information in this case, to-wit, the---day of December, A. D. 1901, did then and there willfully and feloniously steal, take and carry away thirty-five dollars lawful money of the United States of the value of thirty-five dollars or any other amount of money of the value of-thirty dollars or more, the personal property of John Adams, then you will find the defendant guilty of grand larceny and assess the punishment of each defendant separately at imprisonment in the penitentiary for a term not less than two years nor more than five years."

¶5Defendants’ contention is conceded by the State to be settled by a uniform decision of this court (State v. Gray, 37 Mo. 463; State v. Shermer, 55 Mo. 83; State v. Ware, 62 Mo. 602; State v. Moore, 101 Mo. 316; State v. Lackland, 136 Mo. 26; State v. Rutherford, 152 Mo. 124) and that the judgment must of necessity be reversed.

¶6It is so ordered, and the cause remanded.

All concur.
/170/mo/13 · .json · Public domain