3 Nev. 238 | Nev. | 1867
Opinion by
full bench concurring.
The defendants were indicted, tried, and found guilty upon a charge of an attempt to commit the crime of grand larceny, an
The manner in which such attempt was made is not shown, nor are. the facts showing that they did make such attempt, anywhere stated in the indictment. This is very much like charging the commission of murder at a time and place in general terms, without in any way stating the manner in which it was committed. Suppose the witnesses for the prosecution in this case had simply sworn that the defendant attempted to commit grand larceny by stealing amalgam from the Napa Mill; surely that would amount to nothing. To authorize a conviction, it would be necessary to state the facts upon which they founded the conclusion that such an attempt had been made, so that the jury might judge for themselves whether the defendants had attempted the commission of the crime charged against them. The jury might, from the same facts, draw a very different conclusion from that drawn by the witnesses. Hence, the necessity for showing the facts upon which such conclusion is based. So in the indictment, it is necessary to state the particular manner in which the crime is committed, and it is not sufficient simply to state general conclusions from the facts.
The statement does not contain all the evidence adduced at the trial. We are therefore unable to say whether the case should be resubmitted to another grand jury or not.
Judgment reversed.