Mann

People v. Mann

Good Law
113 Cal. 76·1896 Cal. LEXIS 747·45 P. 182
Supreme Court of CaliforniaMay 28, 1896Crim. No. 107California589 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Garoutte, J.

The defendant was convicted of the offense of “ an attempt to commit grand larceny.” It is now insisted that the evidence is insufficient to support the verdict of the jury, and this brings us to a consideration of the sole question involved in the case, and that is as to the amount and character of evidence necessary to constitute the offense of attempt to commit *77 grand larceny. It is practically admitted that, if the defendant had finally been successful in securing the money of the prosecuting witness Manino, the offense would have been grand larceny. But his hopes and plans in that direction were never consummated, hence a larcen3r was not committed. And it is now insisted by defendant that his schemes, artifices, and acts looking toward his possession of Manino’s money had not progressed to that point of constituting the offense of attempt to commit grand larceny, when the prospective victim became alarmed, and defendant’s labors went for naught.

The facts'are interesting, though the tale has often been told in courts of justice. Manino had four thousand dollars in bank and was desirous of investing in the saloon business. The defendant, a stranger, casually met him, and…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.