State v. Hanley
Supreme Court of Connecticut
Information for embezzlement, brought to the Superior Court in Litchfield County and tried to the jury before Ralph Wheeler, J.; verdict and judgment of guilty, and appeal by the accused for alleged errors in the rulings and charge of the court.
Read the full summary
Information for embezzlement, brought to the Superior Court in Litchfield County and tried to the jury before Ralph Wheeler, J.; verdict and judgment of guilty, and appeal by the accused for alleged errors in the rulings and charge of the court. The accused also moved for a new trial for a verdict against evidence, which the trial court denied; and thereupon a similar motion was made and addressed to this court, under Chap. 51 of the Public Acts of 1893. Motion for a new trial upon this ground denied. The second count in the information, upon which the defendant was convicted, was as follows:…
1Opinion of the CourtHameksley, J.
Theft, as distinguished from embezzlement, is taking property of another from the possession of the owner, with intent to defraud." Embezzlement, as distinguished from theft, is taking property of another in the *270possession of the accused, with intent to defraud. The crimes are essentially the same; but most unfortunately are, for the purposes of prosecution, entirely distinct. The one demands, as an essential element a trespass, a breach of technical possession; the other cannot be committed unless the element of trespass or breach of technical possession is absent. The former is a crime at…
2Cited by4 opinions
- State v. ParkerSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1930
- People v. MeserosCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1910
- State v. MorenoSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1968
- State v. LanyonSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1910