Elliott v. State
| Decision Date | 25 March 1970 |
| Citation | 454 S.W.2d 187,2 Tenn.Crim.App. 418 |
| Parties | James A. ELLIOTT, Plaintiff in Error, v. STATE of Tennessee, Defendant in Error. |
| Court | Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals |
Brett B. Stein, Memphis, for plaintiff in error.
David M. Pack, Atty. Gen., Everett H. Falk, Asst. Atty. Gen., Nashville, Arthur T. Bennett, Asst. Dist. Atty. Gen., Memphis, for defendant in error.
The plaintiff in error sought to interpose a rather interesting but unavailing defense and from the trial judge's refusal to allow its interjection on voir dire examination or by specially requested charge we have this appeal seeking to overturn the conviction for armed robbery and ten year sentence.
Simply stated, the theory of the defendant was that because he claimed the victim owed him a debt, the jury, if it believed the existence of the debt, would be lawfully justified in finding that a forcible taking of a watch and ring from the person of the victim to satisfy the debt was not robbery.
According to the defendant, the victim had stolen a pair of shoes from him about ten days before he took the jewelry at gun point. Assuming that the victim had stolen the defendant's shoes, the law in this State recognizes no right to enforce payment of the debt thus created by force and violence. Indeed, even if the property the defendant alleged was stolen from him had been the very watch and ring later taken from the person of the victim, the jury would still have been justified in finding the crime of robbery was perpetrated. The right of possession of or title to the property taken is not the issue; the gist of the offense of robbery is the felonious and forcible taking from the person of another goods of value by putting him in fear. (See Clemons v. State, 92 Tenn. 282, 21 S.W. 525.) If the victim had stolen the defendant's watch, ring and the shoes the right of the defendant to recover his property, or the value of same, is limited to legal means of redress. The old adage that 'two wrongs do not make a right' applies with as much logic and force here as does the settled law in Tennessee setting out the same principle in somewhat more legalistic language.
In the case of Black et al. v. State, 11 Tenn. 588 (1832) the defendants sought to prove as their defense to a robbery charge that the property taken from the victim by force and arms, a slave girl valued at $300, was in fact owned by them. In refusing to even allow proof of ownership to be considered as a material element of defense, the judge instructed the jury ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Smith
...violence in the assertion of that claim of right, the law does not excuse the actor who so asserts his claim”); Elliott v. State, 2 Tenn.Crim.App. 418, 420, 454 S.W.2d 187 (1970) (claim of right is not defense to robbery charge), superseded by statute as stated in State v. Leonard, Docket N......
-
People v. Tufunga
...v. State (1970) 49 Wis.2d 105, 181 N.W.2d 383; People v. Uselding (1969) 107 Ill.App.2d 305, 247 N.E.2d 35; Elliott v. State (1970) 2 Term. Crim.App. 418, 454 S.W.2d 187, 188; but see State v. Snowden (1982) 7 Ohio App.3d 358, 455 N.E.2d 1058, 1065 [following Butler]; Com. v. Larmey (Mass.1......
-
State v. Winston
...State v. Russell, 217 Kan. 481, 536 P.2d 1392 (1975); State v. Ortiz, 124 N.J.Super. 189, 305 A.2d 800 (1973); Elliott v. State, 2 Tenn.Cr.App. 418, 454 S.W.2d 187 (1970); Edwards v. State, 49 Wis.2d 105, 181 N.W.2d 383 (1970); Annot., 88 A.L.R.3d 1309 (1978). The most commonly expressed ra......
-
State v. Smith
...in the assertion of that claim of right, the law does not excuse the actor who so asserts his claim"); Elliott v. State, 2 Tenn. Crim. App. 418, 420, 454 S.W.2d 187 (1970) (claim of right is not defense to robbery charge), superseded by statute as stated in State v. Leonard, Docket No. M200......