State v. Warren

Robinson, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. The question raised in this case is one of some importance in criminal pleading. The indictment contains two counts, in each of which the prisoner is charged with stealing several sums of money at the same time, belonging to several owners. And the question is ¹²² whether these counts are had for duplicity.

Now, by duplicity in criminal pleading is meant the joinder of two or more distinct and separate offences in the same count. The object of all pleading, civil and criminal, is to present a single issue in regard to the same subject-matter, and it would- he against this fundamental rule to permit two or more distinct offences to be joined in the same count. So the question really comes to this: Does the stealing of several articles of property at the same time, belonging to several owners, constitute one offence, or as many separate offences as there are different owners of the property stolen ? And, though the question is a narrow one, it is at the same time one in regard to which there is some conflict of opinion.

Upon principle, however, it would seem clear that the stealing of several articles at the same time, whether belonging to the same person, or to several persons, constituted but one offence. It is but one offence, because the act is one continuous act — the same transaction; and the gist of the offence being the felonious taking of the property, we do not see how the legal quality of the act is in any manner affected by the fact, that the property stolen, instead of belonging to one person is the several property of different persons. The offence is an offence against the public, and the prosecution is conducted, not in the name of the owner of the property, nor in his behalf- — but in the name of the State, the primary object being to protect the public against such offences by the punishment of the offender. And, although it is necessary to set out in the indictment the ownership of the property, this the law requires in order that the prisoner may he informed as to the precise nature of the offence charged against him; and further, to enable him to plead a former conviction or acquittal, in bar of a subsequent prosecution for the same offence.

So, it seems clear to us on principle, that the taking of several arti ¹²³ cles of property under such circumstances constitutes but one felony. And this view is fully sustained, not only by the standard elementary books on criminal law, but by the best considered cases. And though the stealing of property at different times, whether belonging to the same person or different persons, constituted separate offences, yet says Mr. East, “if the property of several persons, lying together in one bundle or chest, or even in one house, be stolen together at one time * * * the value of all may be put together so as to make it grand larceny, * * * for it is one entire felony.” 2 East Pleas Crown, see.