Harrington v. State
Loy Harrington v. State.
Opinion of the Court
EDWARDS, P. J.
Plaintiff in error, hereinafter called defendant, was convicted in the district court of Mayes county of grand larceny, and was sentenced to serve a term of one year in the state penitentiary.
Plaintiff in error was charged with the larceny of a pistol of an alleged value of $25. The testimony is challenged as insufficient, and, while not overwhelming, it is nevertheless ample to support a verdict of guilty.
Upon the question of the value of the property stolen, however, we think it is not clearly proven that it was of *28 a value exceeding $20. The testimony is that the pistol was a secondhand automatic, somewhat out of repair, and is valued by one witness as low as $7. The principal witness for the state testified that it had a. value, “something about $25.” This proof of value is too- uncertain to- support the higher grade of larceny, but is sufficient to support a conviction for petit larceny. The judgment is therefore modified from grand larceny to the included offense of petit larceny, and the punishment fixed at a fine of $100, and a' term of 30 days in the county jail. Lebo v. State, 40 Okla. Cr. 116 , 267 Pac. 288 ; Mayberry v. State, 44 Okla. Cr. 134 , 279 Pac. 934 .
As modified, the case is affirmed.
DAVENPORT and CHAPPELL, JJ., concur.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 1 case
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Most recent
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.