Commonwealth v. Burke
Commonwealth v. Peter Burke
Headnotes
Summary
Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
Bigelow, C. J.
The precise value of the property alleged to have been stolen in this case was immaterial, and need not be proved or found by the jury. The punishment of the offence charged on the prisoner —■ larceny from the person — and of which he was found guilty, did not depend on the value of the articles taken. The inspection of these articles by the jury, for the purpose of ascertaining that they were of some value, was competent; and if by such inspection they were satisfied that the articles were of value, they were authorized so to find.
Exceptions overruled„
How later courts describe this case
Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 2 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.
-
(applying same reasoning to completed larceny from the person; finding no trial error where value was not proved to jury)
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.