State v. Hellekson

Citations

• 13 S.D. 242
• 83 N.W. 254
• 1900 S.D. LEXIS 136

Syllabus

<p>1. An information for grand larceny which charges that defendant by fraud and stealth did steal, take, and carry away, with intent to deprive the owner thereof, a cow of the value of $25, which was the propertr of tí., is a sufficient statement, of facts, under Comp. Laws, ¡j 6780, defining larceny, and a sufficient allegation of taking possession of the properly alleged to have been stolen.</p> <p>2. An information is not invalid for omitting the word “the” from the concluding clause, “against the peace and dignity of the slate,” as such formal clause is unnecessary.</p> <p>3. The failure of the court, on the trial of a criminal case, to indorse its ruling on a requested instruction, as required by Comp. Laws, § 7405, will not prevent a review of its action in not giving such instruction.</p> <p>4. The state’s attorney, who had been connected with the case, as defendant’s attorney, before his election, appeared for the defendant, and another attorney appeared for the state. The state’s attorney explained the reasons for his appearing- for the defendant to the jury, and the attorney for the prosecution then referred to such fact. Held, that it was not error for the court to refuse to charge that the appearance of the county attorney for the defendant should not prejudice the rights of the defendant, as defendant could have avoided such a result by employing- another attorney.</p> <p>5. Where a requested instruction in a criminal case would be meaningless if not modified, its refusal is not error.</p>