TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Commonwealth v. Burke

Commonwealth v. Peter Burke

Commonwealth v. Burke, 94 Mass. 182 (1866)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
January 15, 1866
Judges
Bigelow
Citations
94 Mass. 182
Headnotes
to indictment for stealing a wallet and certain bank bills from the person may be sustained without the introduction of testimony to prove that those articles were of any value.
Summary
Indictment for stealing one wallet, of the value of one dollar, and certain bank bills, from the person of William S. Roads. At the trial in the.superior court, before Russell, J., the taking of the property, the asportation and the ownership, were proved directly. The wallet and bank bills were produced, identified and put into the case; but nothing was said as to the value of either of them. The defendant requested the court to direct an acquittal; but the judge refused to do this, and ruled that the wallet was evidence to go to the jury, without inore, and if they on inspection found it to be of no value they must acquit; that it was not necessary to prove that the bills were current bank bills; and if they were of any value as paper, and were stolen by the defendant as alleged, this would warrant a cor viction, and this fact was to be submitted to the jury to find on inspection. The jury returned a verdict of guilty, and the defendant alleged exceptions.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Bigelow

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.

2000: 120002026peak 2000 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Apprendi v. New Jersey530 U.S. 466 (2000)

Most recent

  1. Apprendi v. New Jersey530 U.S. 466 (2000)

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.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list