Case ID: ala_55/html/0177-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      STONE, J. —", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Ross v. The State.
    
      Indictment for Larceny, and Receiving Stolen Goods.
    
    1. Amendment of indictment — An indictment for larceny, or for receiving stolen goods¡ may be amended, with the consent of the defendant, in the averment of the Christian name of the person to whom the goods belonged (Eov. Code, § 4143); and the fact that the defendant objected to the amendment, and only consented to it to avoid being bound over to answer a new indictment at the next term, does not render the allowance of the amendment in proper.
    2. Imitation and commencement of prosecution. — A warrant of arrest, issued and returned by a proper officer, is the commencement of a criminal prosecution (Eev. Code, § 3954) within the meaning of the statute of limitations.
    Fec* the Circuit Court of Lee.
    Tried before tbe Hon. James E. Cobb.
    Tbe indictment in tbis case was found at tbe November term of said court, 1876, and contained two counts; tbe first charging larceny, and tbe second tbe receiving of stolen goods knowing them to bave been stolen. In each count, tbe goods were described as tbe personal property of R. G. Williamson. On tbe trial, as tbe bill of exceptions shows, tbe defendant having pleaded not guilty, “tbe State asked leave to amend tbe indictment, by alleging in each count that tbe property belonged to J. E. Williamson; to which tbe defendant refused to consent. Tbe court then announced, that tbe State would be allowed to dismiss tbe present prosecution, and tbe defendant would be bound over to answer another indictment, to be preferred at tbe next term of tbe court. Tbe defendant objected to tbe ruling of tbe court, and excepted to tbe overruling of bis objection; and then, reserving bis said objection and exception, consented, in lieu of going to jail in default of bond, that said amendment might be made; which was accordingly done.”
    “ Tbe court charged tbe jury, among other things, that in a case of petit larceny, if a warrant for tbe arrest of tbe defendant was'issued and returned by a proper officer, within twelve months after tbe commission of tbe offense, then tbe statute of limitations of twelve months would be no bar. To tbis charge tbe defendant excepted.”
    H. 0. Lindsey, for tbe defendant.
    Jno. W. A. Saneord, Attorney-General, for tbe State.
   STONE, J. —

Tbe Circuit Court- did not err in allowing tbe amendment of tbe indictment, so as to set forth tbe correct name and description of tbe person, whose property was alleged to have been stolen. — Revised Code, § 4143; Martha v. The State, 26 Ala. 72.

Tbe court did not err in tbe charge given. — Revised Code, § 3954; Foster v. The State, 38 Ala. 428.

Tbe judgment is affirmed.