Commonwealth v. Sullivan
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
1Opinion of the CourtColburn, J.
This is an indictment for receiving stolen goods, knowing them to have been stolen. The defendant, in support of his motion to quash, relies only upon the omission to state the place of the larceny in the indictment.
“ The offence of receiving stolen property is a substantive crime in itself, and not merely accessorial to the principal of-fence of larceny.” Commonwealth v. Barry, 116 Mass. 1.
It is well settled that, in an indictment for the substantive offence of receiving, it is not necessary to state the place of the larceny. 2 East, P. C. c. 16, § 163. Stark. Crim. Pl 169. Holford v. State,…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Commonwealth v. BarryMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1874
- Holford v. StateIndiana Supreme Court · 1827
3Cited by2 opinions
- Commonwealth v. ParrottaMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1944
- State v. CrawfordSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1893