Bowlin v. State
Decision Date | 11 June 1904 |
Parties | BOWLIN v. STATE |
Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Appeal from Greene Circuit Court, ALLEN N. HUGHES, Judge.
Reversed.
W. W Bandy, B. H. Crowley, for appellant.
The indictment was fatal on demurrer. Sand. & H. Dig., § 1883; 33 Ark. 563; 50 Ark. 501; Rapalje. Larceny, 446, 648; Hughes, Cr. L. §§ 774, 792. To constitute robbery the taking must be from the person or in the presence of the person robbed. Hughes, Cr. L. 566, 782; Rapalje, Larceny 444; Hughes, Cr. L. §§ 766, 782. The defendant had a right to a full and correct statement of the law, which was omitted in this case. Hughes, Cr. L. § 3243; 56 Ark 594; 60 Ark. 613; 63 Ark. 262; Rapalje, Larceny, § 248. The instruction defining an assault should have been given. 50 Ark. 528. The law relating to an alibi should have been given. I Am. & Eng. Enc. Law, 451; Rapalje, Larceny, § 256; Hughes, Cr. L. §§ 3245, 3249; 65 Ark. 487; 55 Ark. 244; 59 Ark. 279; 69 Ark. 177; Rice, Cr. Ev. 688.
George W. Murphy, Attorney General, for appellee.
Appellant was convicted of the crime of robbery. The indictment was sufficient. So much of the evidence as is necessary to explain the point decided is given by the prosecuting witness as follows:
These facts do not constitute robbery. In Routt v State, 61 Ark. 594, 34 S.W. 262, we held that the snatching of money from another's hand, without using force or putting in fear, would not be robbery. That case and the authorities there cited show clearly that the offense here charged is not robbery. The same case is authority...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
The State v. Lasson
...McGinty, 24 Hun, (N.Y.) 62; People v. Jones, 290 Ill. 603, 8 A. L. R. 357; State v. Fanning, 66 Ga. 167, 4 Am. Crim. 561; State v. Bowlin, 72 Ark. 530, 81 S.W. 838; Davis' Case, 2 N.Y. City Hall Rec. 32; 34 Cyc. Kelley's Crim. Law, sec. 629; Sec. 3307, R. S. 1919. (3) The cross-examination ......
- Lawrence County v. Stewart
-
Floyd v. State
...court. Kirby's Digest, § 2299; 42 Ark. 270; 89 Ala. 172; 53 Ark. 24; 24 Am. & Eng. Enc. Law, 992; 70 Ark. 163; 33 Ark. 561; 49 Ark. 147; 72 Ark. 530. 2. an indictment is valid, and is dismissed without defendant's consent after jeopardy has attached, he can not again be prosecuted for the s......
- Hindman v. State