[DOWNLOAD] "State v. Akers" by Supreme Court of Montana * eBook PDF Kindle ePub Free
eBook details
- Title: State v. Akers
- Author : Supreme Court of Montana
- Release Date : January 13, 1938
- Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
- Pages : * pages
- Size : 57 KB
Description
Submitted December 10, 1937. Criminal Law รข€” Larceny of Livestock รข€” Several Acts of Taking รข€” Non-applicability of One Transaction Rule รข€” Plea of Once in Jeopardy รข€” Proper Denial of Plea. Larceny of Livestock รข€” When Different Acts Do not Constitute One Offense รข€” Plea of Once in Jeopardy รข€” Proper Rejection of Plea. 1. Where defendant and others, under a concerted plan to steal horses and ship them out of the state for sale, stole a number of animals from one band about a mile east of the ranch of one B. and drove them to B.'s corral, and then went south three-quarters of a mile and took another bunch, corralling them at the same place, the two groups of animals watering but not ranging together, and defendant was convicted of the theft of one animal in the first group, and of the theft of one in the second, the animals belonging to different persons, the stealing of each animal was a complete and independent offense, and conviction of larceny of the first was not a bar to the prosecution for the theft of the second, as properly found by a special verdict of the jury on the plea of once in jeopardy. (JUSTICES ANGSTMAN and ANDERSON dissenting.) Same รข€” Commission of Several Acts of Larceny รข€” When Only One Transaction Rule Applicable. 2. To make the rule that where several articles are stolen at different times and from different places, there is but one larceny if there was but a single design, impulse or purpose, applicable, the different subjects involved in the taking must have been so related in point of time and location as to make it physically possible for actual control to be exercised over both at the same time. (Correctness of decision in case of In re Jones, 46 Mont. 122, 26 P. 929, questioned.) Defendant has appealed from a judgment of conviction of the crime of grand larceny, from an order denying his motion for a new trial, and from an order denying his motion to set aside the judgment for want of jurisdiction.