Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

41 Ala. 412

Wolf v. State

Supreme Court of Alabama

Decided January 15, 1868

Supreme Court of Alabama · decided 1868-01-15

From the Circuit Court of Morgan. Tried before tbe Hon. Wi. B. Wood.

Relies on Spivey v. State · State v. Murphy

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1868-01-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently October 1981

10 state decisions

401868187018801890190019101920193019401950196019701980decided

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 →

BYRD, J.

¶1The indictment is predicated on section 3174 of the Code, which declares, that “ any person, who commits the crime of larceny, by stealing any personal property, not exceeding twenty dollars, is guilty of petty larceny,” &c. This leaves the offense, as to its ingredients, except the value of the property, the same as at common law. As a general rule, an attempt to commit a misdemean- or, is a misdemeanor; and section 3301 of the Code prescribes the mode and measure of punishment.—1 Bishop’s Criminal Law, § 683 (520); The State v. Murphy, 6 Ala. 765. On an indictment for a misdemeanor, a conviction for an attempt to commit the offense may take place—Code, § 3601; Penal Code of 1866, § 647; Revised Code, § 4199. The first charge asked was correctly refused by the court. The prisoner might have been convicted of an attempt to commit larceny, without any caption or asportation of the property. But he could not be convicted of larceny, without proof of a taking and carrying away the property. All the evidence is set out in the bill of exceptions ; and we are satisfied that it does not show such a taking and carrying away of the property as is necessary *414to make out the offense of larceny.—2 Bishop’s Criminal Law, §§ 804 (699), 806 (701); 3 Greenleaf’s Ev. §§ 154, 155; Spivey v. The State, 26 Ala. 90, and authorities cited. The court should have given the second charge asked, and on this account, the judgment of the court must be reversed; and as a conviction may be had, for an attempt to commit the offense with which the prisoner is charged, if the evidence should satisfy the jury that he is guilty of such attempt, the cause will be remanded for another trial.

¶2Beversed and remanded.

/41/ala/412 · .json · Public domain