State v. Krieger

State v. Krieger, 68 Mo. 98 (1878)

Court: Supreme Court of Missouri · State Highest Courts
Decided: October 15, 1878
Judges: Sherwood
Citations: 68 Mo. 98

Cited by 7

Headnotes

Larceny. There can be no conviction of larceny without proof of the value of the property stolen; and unless the record shows that there was such proof, the Supreme Court will set aside a conviction although the error was not pointed out by counsel.

Summary

Appeal from St. Louis Court of Appeals.

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

Opinion of the Court — Sherwood

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Sherwood, C. J.

— Defendant was indicted, tried and convicted for stealing a package of spool-cotton. There is nothing in the record Which warrants a reversal except the error committed by the court in giving of its own motion, the fourth instruction, relative to the value of the property stolen. There was no evidence, whatever, as to the value of that property, and consequently the instruction was erroneous. And even if the instruction complained of had not been given, still the verdict could not be permitted to stand, as under the law then in existence, the property stolen must have equal ed or exceeded in value the sum of $10. But, as above seen, there was no evidence as to value at all, hence a conviction.would have been improper for any grade of larceny. The motion for a new trial called attention to the fact that the verdict was against the evidence; but the precise point, here mentioned, wherein the insufficiency ■consisted, escaped the attention of counsel. In the discharge, however, of our statutory duty, (State v. Barnett, 63 Mo. 300 ,) we have, on examination of the record, discovered the above defect, which must be regarded a fatal one. Judgment reversed and cause remanded.

All concur.

Reversed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 7 cases

View all citing references →

Relies on it most ⓘ

State v. Gibson409 S.W.2d 243 (Mo. Ct. App. 1966)
State v. Meyers99 Mo. 107 (1889)
State v. Brewer286 S.W.2d 782 (Mo. 1956)
State v. McCarthy336 S.W.2d 411 (Mo. 1960)
State v. Stanley100 S.W. 678 (Mo. Ct. App. 1907)
State v. Bellew282 S.W.2d 536 (Mo. 1955)

Most recent

State v. Gibson409 S.W.2d 243 (Mo. Ct. App. 1966)
State v. McCarthy336 S.W.2d 411 (Mo. 1960)
State v. Brewer286 S.W.2d 782 (Mo. 1956)
State v. Bellew282 S.W.2d 536 (Mo. 1955)
State v. Stanley100 S.W. 678 (Mo. Ct. App. 1907)
State v. Weber56 S.W. 893 (Mo. 1900)

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 1

Depth	Case	Cited by
	State v. Barnett, 63 Mo. 300 (1876)	13

`/`	Focus the search box
`j` `k`	Next / previous result
`Enter`	Open the selected result
`x`	Add / remove the selected result from the download list
`n` `p`	Next / previous search term in a case
`c`	Copy the citation of the current case
`+` `−`	Larger / smaller reading text
`?`	Show this list