Clay v. State
| Decision Date | 02 March 1905 |
| Citation | 50 S.E. 56,122 Ga. 136 |
| Parties | CLAY. v. STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
BOBBERY—INSTRUCTIONS—EVIDENCE.
1. On the trial of one accused of robbery it is not error for the judge to read, in his charge to the jury, the definition of robbery as given in the Code of 1895, and to omit the amendment added thereto by the act of 1903, such act adding the words, "sudden snatching, taking or carrying away any money, goods or chattels or anything of value from the owner or person in possession or control thereof, without the consent of the owner or person in possession or control thereof"; the accused not being indicted for "snatching, " etc., but for robbery by force.
2. Where the state's evidence shows that one of the articles taken by the accused from the prosecutor was a watch, and, further, that the accused and a certain woman were very intimate, it is not error to admit evidence showing the watch to have been in possession of the woman the morning after the robbery. Such evidence tends to corroborate the testimony of the prosecutor that the watch was taken from his possession the night before by the accused.
(Syllabus by the Court.)
Error from Superior Court, Bibb County; W. H. Felton, Jr., Judge.
Sherman Clay was convicted of robbery, and brings error. Affirmed.
John R. Cooper, for plaintiff in error.
Wm. Brunson, Sol. Gen., for the State.
SIMMONS, C. J. 1. Sherman Clay was indicted and convicted of the offense of robbery. He made a motion for a new trial, which was overruled, and he excepted. One of the grounds of his motion is that the judge below erred in charging section 151 of the Penal Code of 1895, which is as follows: "Robbery is the wrongful, fraudulent and violent taking of money, goods or chattels from the person of another by force or intimidation, without the consent of the owner, " and omitting the amendment thereto added by the act of 1903. This act amends the Code section by adding thereto: "or the sudden snatching, taking or carrying away any money, goods, chattels or anything of value from the owner or person in possession or control, without the consent of the owner or person in possession or control thereof, " and was evidently passed by the Legislaturefor the purpose of making It robbery to snatch purses from persons upon the streets, which of late years has become very common. The accused was indicted for robbery by force, and not for snatching the personal goods of another. The evidence for the state shows that the accused, with...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Huff, 6344
...following, is admissible in evidence, its probative value being for the jury. (Buckine v. State, 121 Ga. 337, 49 S.E. 257; Clay v. State, 122 Ga. 136, 50 S.E. 56.) in the admission in evidence of the bill does not appear. Assignments 7 and 8 are to the effect that the court erred in giving ......