Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

State v. Day

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine

Decided July 14, 1972Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partWeatherbee, Justice

I dissent only from the order of remand for new trial. The Defendants have been properly convicted of the crime of Larceny. There is only one crime of Larceny and the terminologies of “petty” and “grand” only describe the degree of the crime. State v. Thomes, 126 Me. 163, 136 A. 726 (1927). While the property stolen must be of some value (State v. Pelkey, Me., 238 A.2d 611 (1968)), value is in no other respect an element of the crime. At the time of Defendants’ trial the law’s only other concern with value was whether it was or was not in excess of $100 in order to deter*337mine the limits of…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. State v. ThomesSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1927
  2. State v. PelkeySupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1968

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API