People v. Raschke

Decided September 14, 1887

California Supreme Court · decided 1887-09-14

Criminal Law — Bill of Exceptions — Settlement of—Presumption. — Where a bill of exceptions in a criminal case is settled by the trial judge after the expiration of the statutory period allowed therefor, the reasons which may have induced such action will not be inquired into on appeal, but will be presumed to have been sufficient. Id.—Larceny—Possession without Change of Title—Conversion — Felonious Intent. —One who through false representations obtains the possession of personal property with the consent of the owner, under a contract by the terms of which he acquires some special trust or right therein, but without a change of the general title, is guilty of larceny, upon subsequently converting the same to his own use, if he had the felonious intent to steal the property at the time the possession was obtained. Id. — Grand Larceny — Value of Goods.—Under such circumstances, the person feloniously obtaining the goods, if guilty at all, is guilty of grand larceny, when the value of the goods so obtained exceeds fifty dollars. Id. —Instruction—Omission of Element of Felonious Intent. — In a prosecution for such a larceny, the court instructed the jury to find the defendant guilty, if he obtained possession of the goods by-false representations, but without any change in the title, and at the time the possession was so obtained he intended to convert them to his own use, and did so convert them. Held, that the instruction was erroneous in omitting the element of a felonious intent to steal at the time the possession was obtained.

Relies on People v. Smallman

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1887-09-14

How this case has been cited

Cited by 16 later decisions — most recently December 1956

15 state decisions

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 →

Thornton, J.,

¶1dissenting. — I dissent. The foregoing opinion drawn up by McFarland, J., as to the charge to the jury by the trial court, directly conflicts with People v. Smallman, 55 Cal. 185, where the point passed on in this case is distinctly made, considered, and decided.

¶2The obtaining possession of personal property by artifice or fraud, where title does not pass to the taker, with an intent at the time of the taking to convert it to the taker’s use, and the subsequent conversion of it to his use by the taker, is a felonious taking, and is larceny. (People v. Smallman, supra; United States v. Durkee, 1 McAll. 193-206.) I am of opinion that the judgment should be affirmed.