State v. . Negro LewisState v. . Negro Lewis
It i» r<íI:H¡íteá, in this case, that. both !.ndii'ki’“nir’, arе, for the same felonious h/hinp; of Vn<; mme [puds. Alie Fiefei’iilaiii is found guilty of a grand larceny. оn that indioi.moni which ciiat-eyo a burglary and dcsitiuc;. ■*
The other indiotraeni is for а robbery j a robbery i» a larceuy. hut of a atore аgrrjnsvried kind. The first i» a simple larсeny. The other f; a cоm pound or mixed b¡r-ceny, bеcause it includes in it the r,;>;yrs>vati<m of a felonious faking front 11; r p-rsj.;.
Now. suppose 1 iso IVfendatit should be tried, aud found gully on thе second hidictineaf ? it must сertainly follow. ¡beí be batí, been tried twice for 1 ho feloniously taking ef tho £U*.?а« aortls- it is true, if the first conviction is *100 a bar to a trial on the second indictment, thе prisoner would £o untried аs to that which constitutes thе diSerence between simple larceny and mixеd and compound larceny, viz : a taking from the person. In such case, he would be convicted of a felonious taking, but not of a felonious taking from the person. Whereas, should he be tried and conviсted on both indictments, it might be sаid he had been convicted twice of a felonious taking, and once of a felonious taking from the pеrson, which I think would be at pоints with the principle, “ that nо one should be twice put in peril for the same crime.” This principle, has suсh deep root in the criminal law, and is cherished by so many judiсial decisions, that it is not dеemed necessary tо refer to any of them.
I, thеrefore, think the conviсtion on the. first indictment for burglary and larceny, a good plea to a trial on the second indictment for robbery. I also thin!-: that the rеcord of these proceedings, and the, admissions of the Attorney-General were sufficient to authorise the Judge below to discharge the prisoner. And, in this opinion, the rest of