Case Name: Guenther v. The People
Court: New York Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1861-12
Citations: 24 N.Y. 100
Docket Number: 
Parties: Guenther v. The People.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Reports
Volume: 24
Pages: 100–106

Head Matter:
Guenther v. The People.
Upon an indictment containing nine counts for embezzlement of different grades, and others for larceny, a verdict “ guilty of embezzlement" is equivalent to an acquittal of the larcenies charged, and a bar to any subsequent prosecution.
One of the counts for .embezzlement being good, the verdict means that he is guilty of the offence as charged therein.
An entry by order of the court after the jury was discharged, in amendment of the verdict as first recorded, that “ the jury find the prisoner not guilty of the larceny charged,” is unwarranted and nugatory.
Writ of error to the Supreme Court. The plaintiff in error was arraigned and put upon trial at the Erie Oyer and Terminer, on an indictment containing twenty-three counts; nine for embezzlement of different sums of money at different times and fourteen for larceny. The jury rendered a verdict “guilty of embezzlement,” which was entered by the clerk, and the jury were then discharged. ‘ Afterwards, and during the term, the court, on motion of the district attorney, directed the clerk to make the following further entry after the finding of the jury, viz.: “the jury find the prisoner not guilty of the larceny charged,” which was accordingly done. The court had charged upon the trial that the prisoner could not be convicted of larceny. Upon this conviction the prisoner was sentenced to the State Prison.
The prisoner brought error to the Supreme Court, where the conviction was affirmed, and he brought erfor to this court.
The grounds of error alleged were:
First. That the verdict was erroneous and void, because it did not dispose of all the issues wherewith the jury were charged.
Second. That the verdict was void for uncertainty, because it did not find that the indictment or. any part of it was true, but only that the defendant was “ guilty of embezzlement.”
John L. Talcott, for the plaintiff in error.
Henry W. Rogers, for the People.

Opinion:
James, J.
The first count in the indictment for embezzlement was good. Whether or not the other counts for that • offence" were good is of no importance, because the verdict was general as to embezzlement, and after a general verdict of guilty the conviction will be sustained, if there" be one good count, even though the indictment contain many defective ones. No objection was made to any of the counts for larceny.
The addition tirade to the verdict by the courts after the discharge of the jury was clearly irregular, and must be disregarded. The act was wholly without authority and without precedent.
The indictment contained counts for both embezzlement and . larceny; the prisoner was tried for both offences; evidence was given endeavoring to establish both, which was submitted to the jury. Finding the prisoner guilty of embezzlement was equivalent to a verdict of .not guilty of the larceny charged. No other construction can be put upon the verdict. The question of guilt or innocence of both offences charged was submitted to the jury, and that body found him guilty of but one, and designated which. Trial and conviction upon this indictment is a bar to any subsequent prosecution for the larceny therein charged. (U. S. v. Keen, 1 McLean, 429; 2 Caines, 304; 18 J. R., 187,206.) Not only may a verdict of guilty be rendered on one count and not guilty upon another, but if the jury find the prisoner guilty on one count, and say nothing in their verdict concerning the other counts, it will be equivalent to a ver- - diet of not guilty on such counts. (Morris v. State, 8 Smede & Mar., 762; 7 Blackf., 186; 9 Leigh, 627 ; 4 Scam., 168.)
The verdict is not void for uncertainty. It finds the prisoner guilty of an offence charged in the indictment, and means that offence as charged therein. Its effect is the same as would 'be a verdict of guilty under a single count. The words " of embezzlement " were added to designate to which offence they intended the verdict to apply.
The judgment should be affirmed.
All the judges concurred, except