Morgan v. State
| Decision Date | 22 May 1967 |
| Citation | 220 Tenn. 247,24 McCanless 247,415 S.W.2d 879 |
| Parties | , 220 Tenn. 247 Leon MORGAN and Floyd Morgan, Plaintiffs in error, v. STATE of Tennessee, Defendants in error. |
| Court | Tennessee Supreme Court |
Fred L. Myers, Newport, for plaintiffs in error.
George F. McCanless, Atty. Gen., and Edgar P. Calhoun, Asst. Atty. Gen., Nashville, for defendants in error.
Leon Morgan and Floyd Morgan, hereinafter referred to as defendants, were indicted, tried and convicted of armed robbery in two cases. In Case No. 2747, the defendants were charged with the armed robbery of Liza Messer. In Case No. 2748, they were charged with armed robbery of Mary Jane Messer. In Case No. 2747, their punishment was fixed at thirty years in the State Penitentiary. In Case No. 2748, their punishment was fixed at fifteen years imprisonment.
The defendants filed a motion for a new trial in each case, which were overruled. They have perfected an appeal to this Court in each case and assigned errors.
Miss Liza Messer, age sixty-one; and her twin sister, Miss Martha Messer, lived with their mother, Mrs. Mary Jane Messer, age one hundred and two; in the Del Rio section of Cocke County. The motion of defendants is a niece of Liza and Martha Messer. The defendants resided in Georgia and had visited the Messer home two days prior to the alleged robbery.
Liza and Martha Messer had, over a period of years, saved $4,000.00 in cash which they kept in several trunks in the house. Martha had cashed a check for her mother on the day of the robbery. Martha purchased groceries with a portion of this money. There remained about $35.00 which she agreed to keep for her mother in her pocketbook.
On the night of May 30, 1966, defendants forced their way into the home of the Messers. The defendants were identified by each of the three women.
Each defendant carried a hard object in a sock.
The defendants assaulted the three women with the objects covered by the socks. The women stated these objects appeared to be tire tools or some type of knives and had been used to pry open the door to the house. Martha received a laceration to her forehead and her front teeth were knocked out. The other two ladies were not seriously injured, but were bruised and bled from the nose.
Defendants tied and gagged the women. They ransacked the house and took the $4,000.00 from the trunks. They also took the $35.00 which belonged to Mary Jane Messer, a 32 caliber pistol, various papers, deeds and a photograph.
The evidence further shows that both defendants admitted the crime in the presence of their lawyer in Georgia after they had been advised of their rights and had been allowed to consult with their lawyer.
Defendants, by their first assignment of error, insist the evidence does not support the verdicts of armed robbery. This contention is based on the fact the victims were not forced to reveal the location of the money. It is argued there was no evidence of a felonious and forcible taking of goods or money from the persons, and consequently the defendants committed no greater offense than that of grand larceny.
T.C.A. Section 39--3901 provides:
In the case of State ex rel. Anderson v. Winsett, Tenn., 399 S.W.2d 741 (1965), this Court, in an opinion written by Mr. Chief Justice Burnett, said:
'It is violence that makes robbery an offense of greater atrocity than larceny.'
The undisputed facts show defendants forced their way into the home of the victims. They assaulted the three women in such manner as to prevent them from resisting the taking of their goods and money. These acts of violence clearly constituted a 'felonious and forcible taking.'
The fact the goods and money were not taken from the person of the victims is no defense.
The elements necessary to make out the offense of robbery are the taking must be felonious and forcible and from the person of the party robbed, either actual or constructive. It is actual when the taking is immediately from the person; and constructive when in the possession or in the presence of the party robbed. Jones v. State, 214 Tenn. 683, 383 S.W.2d 20 (1964); Kit v. State, 30 Tenn. 167 (1850); Hammond v. State, 43 Tenn. 129 (1866).
Defendants' second assignment makes the point there was no evidence of the use of a deadly weapon. We see no merit in this assignment. The evidence clearly showed that each defendant had some kind of an instrument in a sock. These instruments were used to pry open the door of the house. One of the defendants struck one of the women with the instrument and knocked out some of her teeth.
Weapons may be placed, generally, in two categories, namely: deadly per se, such as fire arms; and deadly by reason of the manner in which they are used. It is generally recognized by the majority of the States that, 'a dangerous or deadly weapon is any weapon or instrument which, from the manner in which it is used or attempted to be used, is likely to produce death or cause great bodily...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Collins
...See, e.g., Richardson v. State, 429 N.E.2d 229 (Ind.1981); State v. Hutchison, 228 Kan. 279, 615 P.2d 138 (1980); Morgan v. State, 220 Tenn. 247, 415 S.W.2d 879 (1967).1 Westen and Drubel, "Toward A General Theory of Double Jeopardy," 1978 The Supreme Court Review 113, n. 154.2 Those states......
-
State v. McGilton
...See, e.g., Richardson v. State, 429 N.E.2d 229 (Ind.1981); State v. Hutchison, 228 Kan. 279, 615 P.2d 138 (1980); Morgan v. State, 220 Tenn. 247, 415 S.W.2d 879 (1967).” 329 S.E.2d at 846.––– W.Va. at ––––, ––––, 728 S.E.2d at 133. The Court in Myers found that there was no double jeopardy ......
-
People v. Wakeford
...615 P.2d 138 (1980); Johns v. State, 130 Miss. 803, 95 So. 84 (1922); State v. Cabell, 539 S.W.2d 584 (Mo.App.1976); Morgan v. State, 220 Tenn. 247, 415 S.W.2d 879 (1967). See also Ferguson v. State, 405 N.E.2d 902 (Ind., 1980); State v. Branch, 223 Kan. 381, 573 P.2d 1041 (1978); Wilkerson......
-
People v. Adams
...339 N.W.2d 687 ... PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, ... Larry Gene ADAMS, Defendant-Appellant ... Docket No. 56670 ... 128 Mich.App. 25, 339 N.W.2d 687 ... Court of ... Lockhart, 223 Pa.Super. 60, 296 A.2d 883 (1972); Wilkerson v. State, 211 Tenn. 32, 362 S.W.2d 253 (1962); Morgan v. State, 220 Tenn. 247, 415 S.W.2d 879 ... (1967); and Wiley v. State, 552 S.W.2d 410 (Tenn.Cr.App.1977). Several of the cases in which multiple ... ...