Case ID: tenn_33/html/0411-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "MoKiNNEY, J.,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Baldwin vs. The State.
    1. Indictment. Larceny. Description of Bank Notes. A description of bank notes in an indictment for larceny, as one bank bill on the Bank of Tennessee, of the denomination of ten dollars, and of the value of ten dollars, and one bank bill on the Planters’ Bank in Tennessee, of the denomination of ten dollars, and of the value of ten dollars, is a sufficient description.
    2. Evidence. Identity of Stolen Bank Note. Where the indictment for larceny, charged a bank bill the article stolen, as a bank note of three several banks of Tennessee, and the owner could only prove that it was on one of the three banks named ; and the prisoner confessed his guilt as charged, and that he had passed a Tennessee bank note of the denomination stated soon after the felony: Held, thet the jury wore well warranted in the conviction of the prisoner, and in the conclusion that the bank note passed by the prisoner, was the same lost by the prosecutor.
    THOM JACKSON.
    The plaintiff in error, was indicted and convicted at the November Term, 1853, of the circuit court of Jackson, for the larceny of a bank note. The indictment in a single count describes the bank note as “ one bank bill on the Bank of Tennessee, of the denomination of ten dollars, and of tbe value of ten dollars, one ten dollar bank note of tbe value of ten dollars, one bank note on tbe Union bank m Tennessee, of tbe denomination of ten dollars, and of tbe value of ten dollars, and one bank bill on tbe Planters’ Bank m Tennessee, of tbe denomination of ten dollars, and of tbe value of ten dollars.” Tbe material facts proved at tbe trial, are stated in tbe opinion. Tbe prisoner moved for a new trial and in arrest of judgment, wbicb being overruled by tbe court, Judge Goodall presiding, be appealed in error to'this court.
    GaRDENIíike, for tbe prisoner.
    There are in effect four counts in the indictment, the first, third and fourth of which are clearly not sustained by the proof. They contain matter essentially descriptive of the bills supposed to have been stolen, and the proof must correspond with the allegations. 1 Greenl. Ev., § 56, 58. 2 Bussell on Crimes, 106-?. ’Wharton’s Or. Law. p. 12L-8.
    2. The second count is clearly bad, because it charges no fact or circumstance, which identifies the thing stolen. Every fact necessary to be proved, and wbicb is essential to conviction, must be alleged in the indictment, and there must be some evidence of identity; to prove the chattels to be ’ of the same kind will not do. 2 Bussell on Crimes, p. 125. Boscoe’s Cr. Ev., p. 68.
    3. Lost property is not the subject of larceny. M. & Y. B„ p. —. 2 Bussell, p. 11-12.
    1. The thing must be proven of some value. 2 Bus-sell, 125. Boscoe’s Or. Ev., p. 63.
    
      5. It must be proved genuine. 3 Greenl. Ev., p. —. Wharton’s Cr. Law, p. 128.
    6. Confessions, to be received, must neither be influenced by hope or fear. His confessions were after inducements were offered by the prosecutor, which doubtless influenced him at the time. Such evidence ought to be received with great caution. Eor besides other considerations, it should be recollected, that the mind of the prisoner himself, is oppressed by the calamity of his situation, and that he is often influenced by motives of hope or fear to make an untrue confession. 1 Greenl. Ev., § 214. Boom’s case, Yermont, 1819, lb., note 2.
    A confession without proof of the corpus delicti, is not sufficient. 1 Greenl. Ev., § 217. If the note was lost, it was not the subject of larceny. If it was not, then the proof does not show it to be genuine or of any value, and the body of the' offence cannot be shown without them. See Tyner vs. The State, 5 H., 383, 385.
    JohN P. Mureay, for the prisoner.
    This is an indictment against defendant for larceny, there is to the indictment four allegations : Eirst, for stealing a ten dollar bank note on the Bank of Tennessee; second, for stealing a ten dollar bank note, of the value of ten dollars; third, for stealing a ten dollar bank note of the Union Bank; fourth, of the Planters’ Bank.
    The evidence does not sustain the first, third and fourth allegation. We contend that the second allegation is an insufficient description of the subject of the offence. See 1 Russell on Crimes, 106. 1 Chitty’s Or. Law, 235; 3 vol. 946. 2 Hale’s P. C., 182-3. Arcbbold’s Or. Pleading, 49; State vs. Longbottom, 39.
    2. The note must be shown to be genuine by the State, by witnesses acquainted with the money, See 1 Notingham & McCord’s Rep., 9. 3 Binney, 533, Steele vs. Hiclmian, 3 Halstead, 229. The People vs. Ooryl, 12 Wendell 541. New-York Digest, 312. 3 Greenleaf, 141, § 153.
    3. The proof is that the note was lost. Lost property, is not the subject of larceny. See Martin & Merger.
    4. The confessions of the prisoner should not have been received, as they were forced from the mind by the flattery of hope. See 1 Peck’s Rep., 143. 2 Tenn., 80 to 87. 9 Humph., 639. 2 Starkie, 26 to 28. 1 Greenl. 221. 1 Phillips, p. 10. Note to 1 Phillips Ev., 261, p. 431. Roscoe, p. 43-44. Russell, 834, vol. 2.
    5. We contend that a confession directly inadmissible, cannot be admitted for the purpose of raising a presumption against the prisoner, therefore the court erred in admitting proof that the prisoner said in his confession that the bill was an Indiana bill, to contradict his written statement.
    6. We contend that there was error in the practice of the judge, in admitting the evidence of Stith, when we offered to show by evidence almnde that there had been previous promises made to the prisoner to confess. Illegal testimony should never be admitted to go to a jury with a view of withdrawing it. It should be rejected on a preliminary examination. See 1 Greenl., 219. Ghitty’s Or. Law, 271. McNally, 43. 1 Mass. Rep., 144. 1 Pickering, 477.
    
      Tbe magistrate bad no right to interrogate him. See 1 Greenl., 293, § 225, note 5.
   MoKiNNEY, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

The indictment in this case contains but one count, which charges the defendant with stealing: One bank bill on the Bank of Tennessee, of the denomination of ten dollars, and of the value of ten dollars; and one ten dollar bank note, of the value of ten dollars; one bank note on the Union Bank in Tennessee, of the denomination of ten dollars, and of the value of ten dollars; and one bank bill on the Planters’ Bank in Tennessee, of the denomination of ten dollars, and of the value of ten dollarsthe property of Samuel A. Moore. The defendant was found “ guilty in manner and form as charged in the indictment,” and prosecuted an appeal in error.

Various questions are raised in the briefs filed by the counsel for the plaintiff in error, upon which we are requested to express our opinion.

1. As respects the sufficiency of the description in the indictment, of the notes alleged to have been stolen; without entering into any discussion upon this point, we think it sufficient to say, that the description of the first, third and foui'th notes, charged to have been stolen, is subject to no exception, more especially after verdict. The degree of certainty and particularity, of description contended for, would in this class of cases, tend to defeat the administration of justice, and insure impunity to the guilty.

2. Is the evidence sufficient to support the verdict? We think it is. The note stolen is proved by the prosecutor, to bave been a ten dollai' note of the Bank of Tennessee. The defendant upon being arrested, and brought before the justice to answer this charge,'when asked by the justice whether he was guilty or not guilty, freely admitted that “ he was guilty according to the charge in the warrant.” And on the trial in the circuit court, the defendant admitted in writing, over his own signature, that he “passed a ten dollar 'Tennessee bill to Eubanks of Hopkinsville, Ky., shortly after the time that this offence is charged to have been committed.” This evidence, in connection with the other facts established by the proof, well justified the jury in the conclusion, that the Tennessee Bank note passed to Eubanks, was the same note stolen from the prosecutor. True, the proof does not show by which of the several Banks of Tennessee, said note was issued, but the jury were warranted in the conviction of the defendant, if they were satisfied that it was a note of either of the Banks specified in the indictment; and this fact is to be determined by them upon all the evidence in the case.

3. It is said, and the position is correct, that it was necessary to establish that the bank note alleged to have been stolen, was genuine and of value. So the jury were instructed by the circuit judge, and upon this point there is sufficient proof to sustain the verdict. The defendant admitted to the prosecutor that he had passed the note to Eubanks “for goods,” to hire votes in the Kentucky election. By the defendant’s own admission, then, the note was ■ at least prima fade genuine, and of the value imported upon its face.

4. Whether the note was stolen or found by the defendant, was a fact properly submitted to the jury, to determine from tbe proof, under correct instructions as to the law; and we think they were well justified in the conclusion that it was feloniously taken.

5. There is nothing in the- record before us, raising any question of practice in respect to the admission of confessions, and therefore we -express no opinion upon this point.

Judgment affirmed.