State v. Barnett

BEATTY, J.:

I respectfully dissent. Barnett maintains the circuit court lacked subject matter jurisdiction of the grand larceny charge because he was not properly indicted on the charge. Specifically, he contends the language of the indictment could be construed to mean he faced the misdemeanor charge of petit larceny rather than grand larceny, which is a felony. Put differently, Barnett alleges the indictment failed to include an *205essential element of grand larceny — that the value of the property stolen was in excess of $1,000. I agree.

In July 2000, a grand jury indicted Barnett for two…