Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

36 Minn. 538

State v. Boyd

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided May 6, 1887

Supreme Court of Minnesota · decided 1887-05-06

Defendant was tried and convicted in the district court for Hennepin county, before Young, J., and a jury, on an indictment for grand larceny. She appeals from an order refusing a new trial.

Relies on State v. Levy

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1887-05-06

How this case has been cited

Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently April 1921

5 state decisions

2018871890190019101920decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Mitchell, J.

¶1To render the finder of .lost property guilty of larceny in appropriating it to his own use, if is fiecessary that he found it “under circumstances which gave him knowledge or means of inquiry as to the true owner.” Pen. Code, § 425. This was so at common law. State v. Levy, 23 Minn. 104. It is not necessary that the finder should know who the owner is, but he must have such means of inquiry on that subject as to give him reason to believe that, with reasonable effort on his part, the owner will be found.

¶2In' his instructions to the jury the learned trial judge entirely omitted this essential element, having repeatedly instructed them, in substance, that if defendant found the money on the floor, and picked it up with the intention of appropriating it to her own use, she was guilty of larceny. The evidence as to the circumstances under which she says she found the money would have fully justified the jury in finding that defendant had “knowledge or means of inquiry as to the owner,” but under the charge of the court no such question was submitted to them.

¶3For this error a new trial must be^granted.

¶4Order reversed.

/36/minn/538 · .json · Public domain