Morris v. State
| Citation | 97 Ala. 82,12 So. 276 |
| Parties | MORRIS v. STATE. |
| Decision Date | 31 January 1893 |
| Court | Supreme Court of Alabama |
Appeal from circuit court, Barbour county; J. M. Carmichael, Judge.
Jeff Morris was indicted for robbery, and convicted of petit larceny, and appeals. Reversed.
G. L Comer, for appellant.
Wm. L Martin, Atty. Gen., for the State.
The appellant in this case was indicted for robbery, and convicted of petit larceny. The point most strongly urged for the appellant is that, having been indicted for robbery, the conviction in this case was not justified. We cannot subscribe to this contention. It is a well-established rule of criminal law in this state that, where an offense charged in the indictment includes lesser offenses, the indictment will support a conviction of either of such lesser offenses. The major always includes the minor. Code 1886, § 4482. The crime of robbery includes all the elements of larceny, with the one additional element of force or putting in fear. If there be a taking away by trick or contrivance, or carrying away with felonious intent, but no violence or putting in fear as a means of caption of another's property, there is larceny, but no robbery. Thomas v. State, 91 Ala 34, 9 South. Rep. 81; Com v. James, 1 Pick, 375. This offense is certainly included in an indictment that charged that the defendant "feloniously took a watch *** from the person of Zack Simms, against his will, by violence to his person, or by putting him in such fear as to unwillingly part with the same." This principle cannot be affected by the fact that our statutes have divided larceny into two classes, grand and petit. There was no such classification known to the common law, but larceny itself is as old in the common-law jurisprudence as is robbery. Hence this contention of appellants' counsel has no force. Allen v. State, 58 Ala. 98; 1 Russ. Crimes, 905.
The indictment charges that the defendant "feloniously took a watch, by mark of the same, a patent Longine, of the value of $10." The bill of exceptions states that it contains all of the evidence introduced on the trial, but there was no proof identifying the watch spoken of on the trial as being the one so particularly described in the indictment. Without such proof there could be no conviction under the indictment. When the indictment contains unnecessary specifications, or describes the offense more particularly than is necessary the proof must...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ex parte Beverly
...killing of Deroo also embraced the lesser included offense of grand larceny under the facts in this case. See Morris v. State, 97 Ala. 82, 12 So. 276 (1893); Kelly v. State, 235 Ala. 5, 176 So. 807 (1937); Twitty v. State, 50 Ala.App. 246, 278 So.2d 247 (1973); Cordial v. State, 389 So.2d 1......
-
Rickard v. State
...rob, for larceny, for attempt to rob, for assault, or for an assault and battery. Rambo v. State, 134 Ala. 71, 32 So. 650; Morris v. State, 97 Ala. 82, 12 So. 276; Carnathan v. State, 18 Ala.App. 452, 93 So. 50; Thomas v. State, 91 Ala. 34, 9 So. 81; Code 1928, § 8697, and many other author......
-
Ware v. State
... ... Winter v. State, 90 [12 Ala.App. 111] Ala. 637, 8 ... So. 556; Axelrod v. State, 7 Ala.App. 61, 60 So ... 959; Childress v. State, 86 Ala. 84, 5 So. 775; ... Brown v. State, 120 Ala. 342, 25 So. 182; James ... v. State, 115 Ala. 83, 22 So. 565; Morris v ... State, 97 Ala. 82, 12 So. 276), yet, this rule is ... subject to the qualification that, if the fact alleged to ... have been unknown was not, in truth, a material fact, nor ... made so by the character of the averment, then the result ... mentioned does not follow, and the defendant ... ...
-
Watson v. State
...from his person or in his presence. Henderson v. State, 172 Ala. 415, 55 So. 816; Hill v. State, 145 Ala. 58, 40 So. 654; Morris v. State, 97 Ala. 82, 12 So. 276. The victim, in the present case, testified that, a pistol was drawn on him by the appellant, who yelled, "This is a stickup." Th......