Case ID: va_40/html/0454-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PLR CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

*Stroup v. The Commonwealth.
    December, 1842.
    Larceny—Indictment—Second Offence—Omissions—Arrest of Judgment.—Indictment against S. S. for second offence of petit larceny alleges former conviction and punishment of S. S. for a like offence, but does not in terms allege that the court in which the first offence was tried had competent authority to try the same; nor that the former conviction remains in force; nor that such conviction appears by the record; nor that S. S. formerly convicted is the same person who is charged with the subsequent offence. Verdict, guilty. Held, none of the omissions aforesaid in the indictments is a ground for arresting the judgment.
    Same—Same—Same—Verdict.—One count of indictment charges petit larceny in the usual form; another, petit larceny committed after party had been convicted of a' like offence: verdict finds prisoner guilty on both counts, and fixes imprisonment at five years: Held, no objection lies to the verdict.
    An indictment against Susanna Stroup for petit larceny, containing two counts, was found in the circuit superior court of Wythe county at September term 1842. In the first count, which was in the usual form, the defendant was charged with the larceny of a heifer, the property of John Catron, of the value of six dollars. In the second count it was alleged, that, in the year 1821, Susanna Stroup was duly examined upon a charge of petit larceny, before a called court of five justices of the peace for Wythe county, having full authority in that behalf; was sent on by the examining court to be further tried in the county court of Wythe; and was accordingly indicted, tried and convicted in the said county court and actually punished, for the said offence. All the proceedings had in the examining court and in the court of trial were set forth with much minuteness of detail. And then the count proceeded to charge, ‘that after the said Susanna Stroup was convicted and punished for the petit larceny above set forth, in manner and form as before stated, she the said Susanna Stroup, on the 28th day of June 1842, at the county aforesaid and within the jurisdiction of the circuit *superior court aforesaid, with force and arms, one small yearling heifer, red and white spotted, marked &c. of the value of six dollars, of the goods and chattels of one John Catron, then and there being found, feloniously did steal, take and carry away; so the grand jury aforesaid do say that the said Susanna Stroup hath committed the offence of petit larceny the second time, in manner and form aforesaid, contrary to the act of the general assembly” &c. But the count did not in terms allege any of the following matters: 1. That the court in which the first offence was tried had competent power and authority to try the same. 2. That the judgment of former conviction remains in force and unreversed. 3. That the proceedings and conviction for the former offence appear by the record thereof. 4. That Susanna Stroup who was convicted for the former offence is the same person who is charged with the subsequent offence.
    A trial being had on the plea of not guilty, the jury found the prisoner guilty on both counts, and ascertained the term of her imprisonment in the penitentiary to be five years. She thereupon moved the court to arrest the judgment, upon the ground that in the indictment the first three of the allegations above noticed were omitted, and also because the verdict found her guilty on both counts of the indictment. The court overruled the motion, and gave judgment that she be imprisoned in the penitentiary for the term ascertained by the jury.
    And now she applied by petition to this court for a writ of error, assigning for error the matters before relied upon for arresting the judgment, and also the omission in the indictment of the fourth allegation above mentioned,
    Lyons for the petitioner.
    
      
      See monographic note on "Larceny” appended to Johnson v. Com., 24 Gratt. 555, and monographic note on “Indictments, Informations and Presentments” appended to Boyle v. Com., 14 Gratt. 674. The principal case is cited in Pryor v. Com., 2 Va. Dec. 482.
    
   PLR CURIAM.

Writ of error denied.