State v. Boyd

32 N.W. 780, 36 Minn. 538, 1887 Minn. LEXIS 272
Supreme Court of Minnesota·Decided May 6, 1887·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

Mitchell, J.

To render the finder of .lost property guilty of larceny in appropriating it to his own use, if is fiecessary that he found it “under circumstances which gave him knowledge or means of inquiry as to the true owner.” Pen. Code, § 425. This was so at common law. State v. Levy, 23 Minn. 104. It is not necessary that the finder should know who the owner is, but he must have such means of inquiry on that subject as to give him reason to believe that, with reasonable effort on his part, the owner will be found.

In' his instructions to the jury the learned trial judge entirely omitted this essential element, having repeatedly instructed them, in substance, that if defendant found the money on the floor, and picked it up with the intention of appropriating it to her own use, she was guilty of larceny. The evidence as to the circumstances under which she says she found the money would have fully justified the jury in finding that defendant had “knowledge or means of inquiry as to the owner,” but under the charge of the court no such question was submitted to them.

For this error a new trial must be^granted.

Order reversed.

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

State v. Boyd, 32 N.W. 780, 36 Minn. 538, 1887 Minn. LEXIS 272 (Mich. 1887).

32 N.W. 780 (State v. Boyd) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

State v. McCarty
182 N.W. 754 (North Dakota Supreme Court, 1921)
Rose v. State
1912 OK CR 406 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma, 1912)
Berry v. State
1910 OK CR 178 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma, 1910)
Fruit Dispatch Co. v. Murphy
96 N.W. 83 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1903)
State v. Hoshaw
94 N.W. 873 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1903)