Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

7 Kan. 106

State v. Brandon

Supreme Court of Kansas

Decided January 15, 1871

Supreme Court of Kansas · decided 1871-01-15

Brandon was tried upon an information charging him, in the same count, with the two offenses of burglary and grand larceny. The jury returned a verdict of guilty of grand larceny. On his motion the judgment was arrested, and he was discharged. The State appeals, pursuant to the authority contained in the following section of the code of criminal procedure, (Q-en. Stat., 865:) “ Sec. 283.

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently January 1926

3 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1871-01-15

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1The opinion of the court was delivered by

Valentine, J.:

¶2The defendant was charged in the court below with burglary and larceny. He was tried for both offenses, but was found guilty of larceny only. After *109conviction he moved the court to arrest the judgment for the following reasons: First, That the facts stated do not constitute a public offense; s'scoñd, that the verdict of the jury in the ease is an acquittal of the defendants; third, that the verdict does not convict him of any offense described in the information.” The court sustained the motion, discharged the defendant, and. rendered a judgment against the plaintiff for costs; to all of which the county attorney for the State excepted, and now appeals to this court.

¶3. The information consisted of one count only; and the defendant was charged with both offenses in this count. This was proper: (§ 72, Gen. Stat., 331.) The defendant was charged with breaking and entering a dwelling house in the day-time, with the intent to commit the larceny charged in the information, which is burglary in the third degree under the statute: .(§§69, 63, 61, Gen. Stat., pp. 331, 330, 329.) And the defendant was also charged with stealing certain goods of the value of fifty dollars from the said dwelling house, which is grand larceny: (§§ 78, 81, Gen. Stat., 332,333.) Theverdictof the jury wasasfollows: “We the jury sworn and empanneled in this action do upon “ our oaths fk " Charles I). Brandon guilty of grand larceny “ to the amount of fifty dollars.” We have no doubt but that a defendant, charged with both burglary and larceny, may be found guilty of the larceny only: (§ 122, Gen. Stat., 840; 2 Arch. Cr. Pr. & PL, 328, 341; 1 Russell on Cr., 839, 840, 841; 1 Wharton Am. Cr. L. §560, et seq; id., § 617; 2 id., §§ 1615,1616; 3 Chitty Cr. L., 1114,1115; Roscoe Cr. Ev., 367, 368.) And the verdict in this case is undoubtedly sufficient as a verdict for grand larceny. The judgment and order of the court below are reversed? and the cause remanded for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion.

All the Justices concurring.
/7/kan/106 · .json · Public domain