Lead Opinion
Dеfendant was arrested with hands, clothes and shoes freshly bloodied, as he attempted to run from a barn where three hogs, bеlonging to another, had just been surreptitiously butchered; and he was convicted and sentenced for their larceny. He contends that the evidence was insufficient to convict him, and that no aspor-tation of the hogs was proved.
Defendаnt’s admitted explanations to the arresting officer of his presence at the barn, first, that he was just “going through that way”, and latеr, that he “came by there hunting” (he had no gun), and his explanation to the jury of his bloody condition, when arrested, that he had helрed his father kill hogs that day (four hours before his arrest), are inadequate; and while the evidence •of his guilt is circumstantial, the circumstances, in our opinion, sustain the verdict.
The hogs were found lying together, closely side by side, with entrails removed. That situatiоn could not reasonably have existed unless the hogs had been shifted after they were killed. The removal of propеrty from the
*312
place it occupies, even “a hair’s breadth”, with intent to steal, will complete the offense of simplе larceny.
State
v. Chambers,
The indictment described the hogs as one red Duroc Jersey hog and two Black Poland China hogs. The proof was simply that one was a red hog and the other two were black hogs. The ancient rule requiring that the description of property stolen be proven in the terms of the indictment was designed to prevent the accused from being misled or subjected to second jeopardy for the same offense. Here, defendant testified that after his arrest, he saw in the barn the same three slaughtered hogs which were described at the trial by witnesses for the state. Both he and the state understood fully at thе trial that he was accused of and was being tried for the larceny of those identical hogs, irrespective of their gеnealogy. He was not misled, nor can be he successfully impleaded again for the larceny of the red hog and the twо black hogs which were slaughtered in the barn. We cannot see that he is prejudiced in any manner because the state failed to show that the red hog was of a breed known as Duroc Jersey and the two black hogs of a breed known as Poland China. The tendency of modern courts is to ignore a variance between allegation and proof unless the variance is material. “Variances are regarded as material in criminal cases only when they mislead the defendant in making his defense, and may expose him to the danger of being again put in jeopardy for the same offense.” 22 Ency. PI. and Pr. 551. Accord:
Cannon
v. Commonwealth,
The judgment is affirmed.
Affirmed.
Concurrence Opinion
concurring:
I concur in the result of the majority opinion, but reach that conclusion by a different method of reasoning.
The accused was indicted for having feloniously stolen, taken and carried away “one red Duroc Jersey hog of the value оf Twenty-two Dollars and Fifty Cents ($22.50), *314 one black Poland China hog of the value of Fifteen ($15.00) Dollars, and one black Poland China hog of the value of Fifteen ($15.00) Dollars, and of the total value of Fifty-two Dollars and Fifty Cents (52.50) of the goods * * ” Naming the breed of the animаls, I take it, would require only proof that they are to be so classified according to the commonly acceрted use of the terms “Duroc” and “Poland China.” Certainly no side issue could be raised involving proof that they were pedigreеd hogs.
However, it seems to me that the indictment is to be taken as describing live animals (see Beale’s Criminal Pleading & Practiсe, section 161, page 123, and 17 R. C. L., page 58, paragraph 63), and if so, it necessarily follows that the asportation of live animals is the required proof for a conviction. Deferentially, it strikes me that the quoted language of the Court’s opinion relates to the asportation of dead animals. The opinion refers to the fact that the hogs “* * * were found lying together, closely side by side, with entrails removed.” The opinion continues: “That situation could not reasonably have existed unless the hogs had been shifted after they were killed.” The asportation of dead animals would be proof which, to my mind, would not be relevant to charges contained in the indictment. But I believe that the proof that these animals were found side by side with their entrails removed amply justifies a circumstantial finding that the state had shown an asportation of live animals.
They were, of course, domestic anim’als.
Dissenting Opinion
dissenting:
With deference, I dissent from the majority opinion. It seems to me that the instant record discloses a clear case of a variance between the proof and the indictment. Here, the indictment charged the larceny of one red Duroc Jersey hоg and two black Poland China hogs. The proof
*313
was to the effect that the hogs stolen were a red hog and two black hоgs. Generally, in an indictment for the larceny of an animal, the simple use of the generic term in the indictment is sufficient to includе all members-of the genus. Thus, it has been held that there is no variance if the indictment charges the larceny of a horse аnd the proof shows the larceny of a mare.
State
v.
Gooch,
■ For these reasons, I would reverse the judgment of the circuit court.