From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. St. Clair

Supreme Court of California
Jul 1, 1880
56 Cal. 406 (Cal. 1880)

Summary

reversing conviction because word "larceny" in indictment was misspelled

Summary of this case from United States v. Mechanik

Opinion

         Department One

         Appeal from a judgment of conviction, and an order denying a new trial and refusing to arrest judgment, in the Superior Court of San Joaquin County. Buckley, J.

         After the decision in Department, the respondent filed a petition that the appeal be reheard in Bank, and the application was denied.

         COUNSEL:

         No offense was charged. " Larcey" is not a word in any language. This error is fatal. (State v. Holden, 2 McCord, 337; State v. Carter, Conf. Rep. 210; Lemon v. State, 6 Am. R. 293; Shaw v. State, 2 Tex. Ct. App. 487; Hawes v. State, id. 504.)

         J. G. Swinnerton, and G. E. McStay, for Appellant.

          A. L. Hart, Attorney-General, for Respondent.


         The omission of the letter " n" from the word " larceny" could not mislead, especially when read with the remainder of the indictment. No demurrer was interposed. In State v. Davis, 1 Ired. 125, it was held, that in an indictment the word " assalt" should read " assault," the word " fifty-too" should read " fifty-two," and the word " make" was held to mean " mark," in an indictment for putting a false mark on sheep. See also 1 Wharton's Criminal Law, §§597, 598, showing instances where " Havely" was held equivalent to " Haverly," and " autron" to " autumn."

         OPINION          THE COURT

         The indictment charges an entry into a stable with intent to commit " larcey." Burglary is the entering of a house, etc., " with intent to commit grand or petit larcey, or any felony." ( Pen. Code, § 459.) There is no such felony as " larcey" known to our law. " Larcey" is certainly not " larceny," nor does the maxim, idem sonans, apply.

         It is said that the Court must give judgment without regard to the technical errors or defects, or to exceptions which do not affect the substantial rights of the parties. ( Pen. Code, § 1258.) But this is more than a departure from an established form; nor is it a case in which facts are averred in the indictment, which sufficiently indicate the sense in which the word purporting to name the crime is employed; but is a failure to describe any offense.

         Judgment reversed, and cause remanded for a new trial.


Summaries of

People v. St. Clair

Supreme Court of California
Jul 1, 1880
56 Cal. 406 (Cal. 1880)

reversing conviction because word "larceny" in indictment was misspelled

Summary of this case from United States v. Mechanik

In 56 Cal. 406 a conviction was set aside because the letter `n' was accidentally omitted from the word `larceny,' though it is probable that no person in the wide world could have had any doubt as to the word intended....

Summary of this case from People v. Ross
Case details for

People v. St. Clair

Case Details

Full title:PEOPLE v. CHAUNCEY ST. CLAIR et al.

Court:Supreme Court of California

Date published: Jul 1, 1880

Citations

56 Cal. 406 (Cal. 1880)

Citing Cases

United States v. Mechanik

There is no indication that this law was meant to disturb the settled law regarding unauthorized persons in…

People v. Ross

Statement of State Senator E.S. Birdsall: ". . . The supreme court has held in 21 Cal. 344 that it is a fatal…