State v. Gazell
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from Si. Louis Criminal Cowl. I. There was no legal asportavit proved. The fourth instruction given by the court is erroneous. The court plainly tells the jury that a larceny had been committed, the very thing they were called upon to decide. The instruction more than revives the rigor of the old common law.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Si. Louis Criminal Cowl. I. There was no legal asportavit proved. The fourth instruction given by the court is erroneous. The court plainly tells the jury that a larceny had been committed, the very thing they were called upon to decide. The instruction more than revives the rigor of the old common law. It tells the jury that no matter whether the property be taken away from the possession of the owner or not, still the felony is complete, if the man tried to steal but did not steal. The horse was not carried away from any place. There was a high fence around the place, and egress…
1Opinion of the CourtSoott, Judge
The defendant was indicted for horse-stealing, convicted and sentenced to the penitentiary. On the trial it appeared in evidence that the horses were in an enclosure. A witness testified that he saw a man leading one of the horses with something on him — a bridle or line. The court instructed *93the jury that “ if the defendant took or led the horse away any distance with a felonious intent, then the asportation is complete, as much so as if the party had succeeded in removing the horse away altogether, and in such case it makes no difference that the horse or horses had not been removed from…
2Cited by7 opinions
- State v. RozeboomSupreme Court of Iowa · 1910
- State v. ChambersWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1883
- State v. JohnsonSupreme Court of Missouri · 1956
- State v. AllenUtah Supreme Court · 1920
- State v. RuyleSupreme Court of Missouri · 1958
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.