State v. Carroll
Montana Supreme Court
Appeal from Seventh Judicial District, Ouster County, Burglary. The defendants were tried before Milburn, J. Statement of the case by the justice delivering the opinion: This is an appeal by the state. The defendants were acquitted. The state excepted to an instruction given by the court, and, reserving the question of law, now prosecutes this appeal. (Criminal Practice Act, § 396.) The information was for burglary.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Seventh Judicial District, Ouster County, Burglary. The defendants were tried before Milburn, J. Statement of the case by the justice delivering the opinion: This is an appeal by the state. The defendants were acquitted. The state excepted to an instruction given by the court, and, reserving the question of law, now prosecutes this appeal. (Criminal Practice Act, § 396.) The information was for burglary. The charging part of the information is as follows: “That the said John Carroll and Edward Evans did then and there the store building of Isaac Orschel and Herman Orschel,…
1Opinion of the CourtDe Witt, J.
The counsel for the state filed an elaborate brief, supported by authorities, to the effect that in proving the burglary it is not necessary to prove the actual commission of the offense, such as larceny or robbery, etc., which the defendant intended to commit, when he made the entering or breaking of the building, but that it is only necessary to prove the defendant’s intent to commit one of the crimes named in the statute when he made the entry.
But that is not the point in this case. To constitute burglary there must be the entry with the intent to commit grand or petit larceny, or any…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Territory of Montana v. WillardMontana Supreme Court · 1889
- Territory of Montana v. DuncanMontana Supreme Court · 1885
3Cited by3 opinions
- People v. BrittainCalifornia Supreme Court · 1904
- State v. GreenMontana Supreme Court · 1895
- People v. WestwoodCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1928