Whitt v. Commonwealth

Court of Appeals of Kentucky

Whitt v. Commonwealth

1 Ky. Op. 185, 1866 Ky. LEXIS 260

DecidedSeptember 28, 1866

StatusPublished

This text of 1 Ky. Op. 185 (Whitt v. Commonwealth) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Kentucky primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Whitt v. Commonwealth, 1 Ky. Op. 185, 1866 Ky. LEXIS 260 (Ky. Ct. App. 1866).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion oe the Court by

Judge Williams :

Although it might have been a robbery and not a larceny had the appellant and his confederates forced the mare alleged to have been stolen out of the immediate possession of her owner, especially under the intimidation, violence, and threatenings proven, yet as the mare during the disturbance had broken away from the person holding her and escaped to the commons where Whitt and his associates afterward captured her, we think a conviction for the larceny was entirely proper.

The taking, when it was really consummated, was not from the person or dwelling of the owner, nor by putting him or any one else in fear. Had the parties succeeded in their first attempt to [186]*186get the mare it would clearly have been a robbery, but when they did succeed the mare was not in the immediate possession of any one, neither was any one then put in fear, nor violence or intimidation toward any one an attendant circumstance.

Wherefore, the judgment is affirmed, as we perceive no error in giving or refusing instructions.

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

Opinion oe the Court by

Judge Williams :

Although it might have been a robbery and not a larceny had the appellant and his confederates forced the mare alleged to have been stolen out of the immediate possession of her owner, especially under the intimidation, violence, and threatenings proven, yet as the mare during the disturbance had broken away from the person holding her and escaped to the commons where Whitt and his associates afterward captured her, we think a conviction for the larceny was entirely proper.

The taking, when it was really consummated, was not from the person or dwelling of the owner, nor by putting him or any one else in fear. Had the parties succeeded in their first attempt to [186]*186get the mare it would clearly have been a robbery, but when they did succeed the mare was not in the immediate possession of any one, neither was any one then put in fear, nor violence or intimidation toward any one an attendant circumstance.

Wherefore, the judgment is affirmed, as we perceive no error in giving or refusing instructions.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 Ky. Op. 185, 1866 Ky. LEXIS 260, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/whitt-v-commonwealth-kyctapp-1866.