Anderson v. State
| Decision Date | 01 January 1934 |
| Docket Number | 30789 |
| Citation | 151 So. 558,168 Miss. 424 |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
| Parties | ANDERSON et al. v. STATE |
1 ROBBERY.
Persons who shot man who opened door and then entered store and shot others and then left store held not guilty of robbery (Laws 1932, chapter 328).
2. INDICTMENT AND INFORMATION.
Indictment charging robbery by assault by use of pistol with intent to take personal property of another included charge of assault (Laws 1932, chapter 328).
3. ASSAULT AND BATTERY.
In robbery prosecution, defendants' guilt of assault held for jury (Laws 1932, chapter 328).
HON WM. A. ALCORN, Judge.
APPEAL from circuit court of Coahoma county HON. WM. A. ALCORN Judge.
Sam Anderson and another were convicted of robbery, and they appeal. Reversed and remanded.
Reversed and remanded.
I. Semmes Luckett, Pat D. Holcomb and E. W. Smith, all of Clarksdale, for appellants.
The state failed to prove the essential elements of the crime charged in the indictment.
There must be present two elements in order to constitute an act an "attempt" to commit a particular offense: first, a design and endeavor to commit the particular offense; and, second, some direct overt act done towards its commission.
Section 793, Mississippi Code of 1930; 8 R. C. L., p. 277; State v. Wade, 102 Miss. 711, 59 So. 880; Miller v. State, 130 Miss. 730, 95 So. 83.
The state proved the use and exhibition of a deadly weapon, proved an overt act towards the commission of some crime, but the state wholly failed to prove an intent to commit the particular crime charged in the indictment and to prove an overt act towards the consummation of that particular crime.
16 C. J., p. 115; Cunningham v. State, 49 Miss. 685; Jeff v. State, 37 Miss. 321; Stokes v. State, 92 Miss. 415, 46 So. 627.
W. D. Conn, Jr., Assistant Attorney-General, for the state.
The intent of an individual may be gathered from his acts or statements, or may be inferred from a given set of circumstances.
The statement, "Put 'em up," as related by Wong Sing, is sufficient to show the purpose for which these defendants came to the store. Whether something occurred which changed them from their original purpose becomes a matter beside the question. Having come to the store armed with a deadly weapon and from his statement, showing an intent to rob, it makes no difference whether they were diverted from their original purpose by reason of encountering more persons than they expected or by some other reason. They came there for robbery with fire arms. Their acts and conduct clearly show an intent to rob and clearly show an overt act in that direction, although it be conceded that they took nothing as a result of their unlawful act.
A defendant cannot state one ground of objection in the court below and switch to another ground in the Supreme Court.
Duckworth v. Town of Taylorsville, 142 Miss. 440, 107 So. 666; Peters v. State, 158 Miss. 530, 130 So. 695; Pickett v. State, 164 Miss. 142, 143 So. 692.
I recognize that it is a rule of this court that generally proof of other crimes is not allowed. But there are certain definite and well recognized exceptions to this general rule. One of those exceptions is where it is necessary in the identification of the accused.
The appellants were indicted and convicted under chapter 328, Laws 1932, which provides that "every person who shall feloniously take or attempt to take from the person or from the presence the personal property of another and against his will by violence to his person or by putting such person in fear of immediate injury to his person by the exhibition of a deadly weapon shall be guilty of robbery and, upon conviction, shall be punished by death if the penalty is so fixed by the jury; and in cases where the jury fails to fix the penalty at death, the court shall fix the penalty at imprisonment in the penitentiary for any term not less than three years." The indictment, omitting the formal parts alleges that the appellants "did, then and there, in and upon one Wong Fong, wilfully, unlawfully, feloniously, and violently an assault did make, by the use and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Anderson v. State
-
Hughes v. State, No. 2007-KA-00209-SCT.
...reason no robbery was consummated was because the intended victim had returned gunfire. Id. at 770. ¶ 35. Hughes cites Anderson v. State, 168 Miss. 424, 151 So. 558 (1934) for support. In Anderson, two men went to the back door of a store and asked for a pack of cigarettes. Anderson, 151 So......
-
Green v. State
... ... state, to-wit, a fair and impartial trial, before a jury who ... are fair and impartial, free from prejudgment of the case, ... biased, ill will, or fixed opinions, and for this error the ... case should be reversed and remanded ... Anderson v. State, 92 Miss. 656, 46 So. 65; ... Tennison v. State, 79 Miss. 708, 31 So. 421; ... Brown v. State, 83 Miss. 646, 36 So. 73; Eddins ... v. State, 110 Miss. 780, 70 So. 898; Eddens v ... State, 96 So. 179; McNeice v. State, 60 So. 8; ... Kenton v. State, 96 So. 179; Fisher v. State, 110 ... ...
-
Richardson v. State
...convicted of robbery by means of a deadly weapon, and he appeals. On suggestion of error. Suggestion overruled. For former decision, see 151 So. 558. (Per Overruled. Quitman Ross, of Laurel, for appellant. At common law the elements of robbery were the felonious and forceful taking of some ......