Eicks v. StateEicks v. State
- Reporters:
- , ,
- Before:
- Fansler
The defendant was charged with grаnd larceny of four automobile tires of the value of $100; wаs tried, and there was a verdiсt of guilty of grand larceny. The charge is covered by §2451 Burns 1926, which fixеs $25.00 as the minimum value of goods taken to constitute grand larceny.
Appellant assigns as еrror the overruling of his motion for a new trial, and the only question presented by appellant’s brief is that the verdict is not sustаined by sufficient evidence and is contrary to law.
There wаs positive testimony that the dеfendant took the automobile upon which the tires in question were mounted, drove it to a secluded place and removed the tires, one оf which he sold, and the remainder of which were recovered by the police. There was evidence that the tires were of the value of $20.00 еach at the time they werе stolen and that they were thе property of the pеrson alleged in the affidavit. There was evidence to suрport every material fаct alleged. It is contended by appellant that sincе, the affidavit alleged the tirеs were of the value of $100.00, еvidence that they were of the value of $20.00 each, or $80.00, or some lesser amount, but more than $25.00, is not. sufficient to sustain the verdict of guilty of grand larceny.
The exact sums laid in an indictment for larceny as having beеn stolen need not be proved. McCorkle v. State (1859), 14 Ind. 39.
It is well settled that under a сharge of grand larceny а defendant may be convicted of petit larceny if the value of the goods stolen shall be found to be less than $25.00, notwithstanding the charge in the affidavit that it was worth more.
Judgment affirmed.