Henry v. State

39 Ala. 679
Supreme Court of Alabama·Decided January 15, 1866·Published·Cited by 6 cases

Opinion

A. J. WALKER, C. J.

The statute upon which the indictment is framed declares, that “ any person who commits larceny in any dwelling-house ” shall be imprisoned in the penitentiary, not less than three nor more than six years. To constitute this offense, larceny must be committed in a dwelling-house. The larceny in this case was committed by taking clothes from the railing on the outer edge of what appears to have been an open piazza, in front of [681] a dwelling-house, and attached to it. Now, such a piazza is not a house, and cannot be a dwelling-house. It may be attached to the house, and may, in some sense, be a part of the house; but it is not, of itself, a house. To be in such a piazza, is not to be in a house. It is rather an entrance to the house, than the house itself. A larceny, committed in the piazza, cannot be said to have been committed in, or inside of the house. The piazza is not within the spirit of the law, which attaches a sanctity to the house, and adds to the punishment on account of that sanctity.—Point v. State, 37 Ala. 148; State v. Chambers, 6 Ala. 855. Dwelling-house means the same in this statute as in the law of burglary. 2 East’s Cr. Law, 644; Ex parte Vincent, 26 Ala. 145. In the language of East’s Criminal Law, “ The dwelling-house must be such wherein burglary may be committed.” There could be no burglary predicated. Of a piazza, such as is described in the bill of exceptions; for there could be no breaking and entering, where there are no exterior walls. The prisoner cannot be convicted of the compound larceny, or larceny in a dwelling-house alleged.

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the cause remanded; but the prisoner must remain in custody, until discharged by due course of law.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Henry v. State, 39 Ala. 679 (Ala. 1866).

39 Ala. 679 (Henry v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Steidl v. State
239 So. 2d 226 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama, 1969)
Henderson v. United States
172 F.2d 289 (D.C. Circuit, 1949)
Driver v. State
89 So. 504 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1921)
State v. Puckett
78 S.E. 737 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1913)
Thompson v. Richardson
96 Ala. 488 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1893)
Lynch v. State
89 Ala. 18 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1889)