State v. TaylorState v. Taylor
This is an appeal on the transcript pursuant to R. 3:23-8 frоm a denial of a motion to acquit at the end of the State‘s case and from a consequent conviction found in a municipal court for larceny of personal property of the price or value of $200 or less committed in violation of
The gravamen of the appeal rests in the absence of рroof that the subject matter of the theft was of a specific price or value; that the court erred in holding that proof of some value was sufficient and, further, it could tаke judicial notice thereof.
The original charge against defendant was predicated upon a larceny in excess of $200 but under $500, in violation of
Defense counsel moved for a dismissal of the complaint for failure of the State to establish the price or value of the property within the requirements of
At common law simple larceny was constituted of the “felonious taking and carrying away of the personal good of another.” Furthеr, at common law simple larceny was subdivided into petit larceny when the goods were of the value of 12 pence or under and grand larceny when the value was above 12 pence. Blackstone‘s Commentaries (Chase ed. 1924), 963. The gradations as to value were effective in establishing the punishment, grand larceny being punishable by death and petit larceny by imprisonment or whipping. Id. at 971. However, the nature of the offense was the same in both cases, the difference being in the degree of punishment only. Hale, Pleas of the Crown (Wilson ed. 1784), 504.
The statute,
There are no decisions in this State specifically stating that a finding of “some value” is sufficient for a conviction under
“In cases of grand larceny it is necessary to prove that the value of the property alleged to have been stolen was more than $20, but in cases of petit larceny it is sufficient if the proof shows property taken was of any value less than $20. * * * The courts will take judicial notice that this amount of gasoline was of some value. [at 587; emphasis supplied]
In State v. Paramo, 92 Ariz. 290, 376 P.2d 554 (Sup. Ct. 1962), defendant was convicted of the petty theft of a gasoline engine. The conviction by a jury was affirmed, the court stating:
Defendant next contends that there was errоr by the trial court in not granting a directed verdict or a new trial as the state completely failed to prove the monetary or market value of the property alleged to have been stolen. However, since the defendant was charged only with petty theft, there was no need to show the actual market value of the engine, but only that it had some value to the owner. [376 P.2d at 556; emphasis supplied]
When the State seeks the maximum penalty permitted by the statute, by alleging in the indictment a property value in excess of $150 (as in this cаse), and the proof fails as to value only, it does not follow that the crime of `theft’ has not been proved. The court may take judicial notice of the fact that a 1959 Chevrolet driveable in 1964 is a thing of some value even though it may not, without more proof, conclude that the value exceeds $150. People v. Dunsworth, 323 Ill. App. 470, 474-478, 56 N.E.2d 52. [214 N.E.2d at 293; emphasis supplied]
In People v. Sparks, 9 Ill. App.3d 408, 292 N.E.2d 447 (App. Ct. 1972), defendant was convicted of the attempted theft of an automobile under $150 in value. Defendant contended that the State failed to prove the value of the automobile. The conviсtion was affirmed, the court stating that the trial court could take judicial notice that a 1962 Buick, in driveable condition, had some value. In Boone v. United States, 296 A. 2d 449 (D.C. 1972), a conviction by a jury for grаnd larceny was reversed for failure of proof that the items stolen were of value to fall within the statutory amount. However, the case was remanded for resentence for petit larceny, the court holding:
“We are not of the opinion, however, that there was no proof of value at all. There is no minimum amоunt required to prove petit larceny — only that the item(s) taken have value.” 52A C.J.S. Larceny § 97 (1968). In the instant case there was sufficient proof of value to sustain a conviction of petit larceny. [Emphasis supplied]
Implicit in the offense of larceny is the right of a person not to have his property stolen from him, irrespective of its monetary price or value. These factors are of significance only when punishment is sought in excess of the minimal statutory category. Where the charge is prosecuted under
“Also, `value,’ as the wоrd is used in prosecutions for larceny, does not necessarily mean money value or market value.” Gates v. State, 20 Ga. App. 171(5), 92 S.E. 974; Mance v. State, 5 Ga. App. 229, 230, 62 S.E. 1053. Chief Judge Russell said in Edmondson v. State, 18 Ga. App. 233, 240, 89 S.E. 189, 192, “We conclude, therefore, that anything, — that is to say, any material object except man — which has any intrinsic value, however small, can be the subject-matter of larceny from the house.” [162 S.E.2d at 236]
State v. Romero, 95 N.J. Super. 482 (App. Div. 1967), cited by defendant, is not aрposite. There the proof of price or value was held to be essential because the State was endeavoring to establish a degree of larceny under
“* * * Thе jury will have to determine that the value is in excess of $200 in order to convict a defendant of the indictable offense. Obviously, if the jury determines that the value is not in excess of $200, then a determination has been made of all that is necessary to convict the defendant of the disorderly persons offense.”
Evid. R. 9(1) requires that judicial nоtice be taken of “propositions of generalized knowledge as are so universally known that they cannot reasonably be the subject of
It is, therefore, determined that the trial judge was completely within his power to take judicial notice that the property stolen was of some value and the defendant herein is found guilty of violating