Case Name: THE PEOPLE v. MARTIN MAY
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1917-07-03
Citations: 36 N.Y. Crim. 78
Docket Number: 
Parties: THE PEOPLE v. MARTIN MAY.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Criminal Reports
Volume: 36
Pages: 78–82

Head Matter:
SUPREME COURT — APPELLATE DIVISION — FOURTH DEPARTMENT.
July 3, I9I7.
THE PEOPLE v. MARTIN MAY.
(179 App. Div. 290.)
Indictment—Code Grim. Proc., §§ 278, 279—Charge of breaking into FREIGHT CAR, STEALING AND CRIMINALLY RECEIVING PROPERTY—FAILURE TO IDENTIFY-CHARGING MORE THAN ONE CRIME.
An indictment charging the defendant and others-, first, with feloniously breaking into a freight car; second, with .petit larceny in stealing dressed poultry of about fifteen dollars in value, and third, with the crime of receiving stolen property consisting of dressed poultry of the value of about fifteen dollars, dismissed and a judgment of conviction reversed, upon the ground that the indictment states more than- one crime in violation1 of sections 278 and 279- of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in that it is not alleged that the stolen, property was contained in the car, or that the property stolen was the same as that covered by the charge of criminally receiving stolen- property.
De Angblis and' Foote, JJ., dissented', with opinion.
Appeal by the -defendant, Martin May, from a judgment of the County Court of Ontario county rendered against Mm on the 18th day of March, 1914, convicting Mm of the crime of petit larceny, and also from an order entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Ontario denying defendant’s motion for a new trial and in arrest of judgment.
An appeal is also taken from the decision of the county judge overruling the demurrer to the indictment.
P. H. Leahy, for the appellant.
N. D. Lapham, for the respondent.

Opinion:
Kruse, P. J.:
I concur for reversal upon the ground that the indictment is demurrable because it states more than one crime. It does not appear that the property which the defendant is charged with stealing was contained in the car which he is charged with breaking into. Neither does it appear that the articles which he is charged with having stolen are the same as those covered by the charge of criminally receiving stolen property. I do not see how it can be inferred that it was the same property simply because in both cases it was poultry, in the absence of any statement to that effect, in view of the statement in the indictment that the property so criminally received by the defendant was stolen by some person unknown to the grand jury.
As to the other point, it is possible that the words " third degree " may be regarded as mere surplusage, but we need not determine that question.
All concurred, except Foote and De Atstgelis, JJ., who voted for a new trial in an opinion by De Aitgelis, J.