Court Opinion

ID: 9639967
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 16:53:51.150676+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:10:23.954505
License: Public Domain

Opinion on Petition to Rehear
Counsel for the petitioners has filed herein a very forceful and dignified petition to rehear, wherein it is argued that from certain testimony of the witness, Suggs, it is stated or at least inferable that the witness testified that certain money taken by English was not taken from the person of the victim but was taken from his billfold which was lying on the counter.
In the original brief and argument part of this testimony of the witness, Suggs, was quoted. It is now, on this petition to rehear, quoted in full. The argument was originally made that this offense merely constituted petit *582larceny and did not constitute a violation of the statute of larceny from the person. Counsel cites a number of authorities, including that of Fanning v. State, 80 Tenn. 651, wherein it is held correctly that one who is charged in an indictment with larceny from the person may be found guilty of larceny, because larceny is included in the offense of larceny from the person.
In our original opinion we did not have the argument made as now made, but answered the question that was made there that this offense was merely petit larceny and held that the trial judge did not err in his failure to charge the lesser offense of petit larceny. We said:
“A very able argument is made to the effect that an error was committed in the ‘larceny from the person’ case when the trial court failed to charge the jury on the offense of petit larceny because the amount here taken was less than the amount necessary for grand larceny, and the jury should have had an opportunity to find the men guilty of petit larceny rather than larceny from the person. This is not error because in larceny from the person the amount of the larceny is not in issue — it is the graver offense of larceny from the person that counts and not simple larceny. It seems to us under the facts herein there was no foundation for any intermediate grade, and thus the charge as given is correct. See Patterson v. State, 218 Tenn. 80, 400 S.W.2d 743.”
After considering this petition to rehear and the full quotation of the testimony of this witness, Suggs, (we read the entire record before writing our original opinion and read this testimony) we think unquestionably that the *583argument now made is answered by the above quotation from our original opinion. There is really no basic foundation for tbe charge of the lesser grade of petit larceny. All the facts were before the jury and, clearly, under the charge of the court and these facts, this record shows that the man is guilty of the offense charged. The mere fact that this witness, Suggs, was rather indefinite and says that the billfold might have been lying on the counter and not taken from his pocket, still brings the offense within the charge of larceny from the person.
Thus it is that after considering the matter again, and particularly this excellent petition to rehear, we find no error in this record and the petition to rehear must be overruled.
At the trial of this case the trial judge was not asked to specifically charge on this question, and, he having not charged the lesser offense, we think unquestionably that the evidence brings the case within that required of being-guilty of larceny under the statute of larceny from the person and not petit larceny. We think the question now raised is answered by such cases as State v. Hargrove, 81 Tenn. 178; Powers v. State, 117 Tenn. 363, 97 S.W. 815; Frazier v. State, 117 Tenn. 430, 100 S.W. 94; and Jones v. State, 128 Tenn. 493, 161 S.W. 1016.
The petition to rehear is overruled.