Woods v. State

Mississippi Supreme Court

Woods v. State

198 So. 882, 190 Miss. 28, 1940 Miss. LEXIS 184

CourtMississippi Supreme Court

DecidedDecember 9, 1940

DocketNo. 34367.

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 198 So. 882 (Woods v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Mississippi Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Woods v. State, 198 So. 882, 190 Miss. 28, 1940 Miss. LEXIS 184 (Mich. 1940).

Pincite

Opinion

*31 Smith, C. J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

This is an appeal from a conviction of larceny. The error assigned, raised first in this court, is that the venue is in Carroll and not Leflore County. The Assistant Attorney General admits that such is the fact.

The evidence warrants a finding that the appellant stole a cow in Carroll County and there sold it to another who sent it into Leflore County where it was found by its owner. After selling the cow the appellant had no further control over or connection with it, and had nothing to do with its being carried into Leflore County.

Section 1188, Code 1930, provides that “Where the property is stolen in another state or country and brought into this state, or is stolen in one county in this state and carried into another, the offender may be indicted and tried in.any county into or through which the property may have passed, or where the same may be found.” This section is in accord with the common law except as to the provision “where the same may be found.”

The stolen cow was found in Leflore County; but to apply the last quoted words of the statute here would violate Section 26 of the State Constitution under which the venue in prosecutions for crime is in “the county where the offense was committed.” “ ‘Larceny, like every other offense, must regularly be tiled in the same *32 county or jurisdiction in which, it was committed; but it should be noted with respect to larceny, that the offence is considered as committed in every county or jurisdiction into which the thief carries the goods; for the legal possession of them remains in the true owner, and every moment’s continuance of the trespass and felony, amounts to a new caption and asportation.’ 2 Russell Cr. Law, 116.” Watson v. State, 36 Miss. 593, 605. Where the stolen property is carried into another county without the person by whom it was stolen being* in any way a party thereto, no crime is committed by him in the county into which the property was carried.

Reversed and remanded.

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

*31 Smith, C. J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

This is an appeal from a conviction of larceny. The error assigned, raised first in this court, is that the venue is in Carroll and not Leflore County. The Assistant Attorney General admits that such is the fact.

The evidence warrants a finding that the appellant stole a cow in Carroll County and there sold it to another who sent it into Leflore County where it was found by its owner. After selling the cow the appellant had no further control over or connection with it, and had nothing to do with its being carried into Leflore County.

Section 1188, Code 1930, provides that “Where the property is stolen in another state or country and brought into this state, or is stolen in one county in this state and carried into another, the offender may be indicted and tried in.any county into or through which the property may have passed, or where the same may be found.” This section is in accord with the common law except as to the provision “where the same may be found.”

The stolen cow was found in Leflore County; but to apply the last quoted words of the statute here would violate Section 26 of the State Constitution under which the venue in prosecutions for crime is in “the county where the offense was committed.” “ ‘Larceny, like every other offense, must regularly be tiled in the same *32 county or jurisdiction in which, it was committed; but it should be noted with respect to larceny, that the offence is considered as committed in every county or jurisdiction into which the thief carries the goods; for the legal possession of them remains in the true owner, and every moment’s continuance of the trespass and felony, amounts to a new caption and asportation.’ 2 Russell Cr. Law, 116.” Watson v. State, 36 Miss. 593, 605. Where the stolen property is carried into another county without the person by whom it was stolen being* in any way a party thereto, no crime is committed by him in the county into which the property was carried.

Reversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

198 So. 882, 190 Miss. 28, 1940 Miss. LEXIS 184, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/woods-v-state-miss-1940.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack