Pippin v. State

Citation136 So. 883,102 Fla. 1124
PartiesPIPPIN et al. v. STATE.
Decision Date07 October 1931
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Florida

En Banc.

Error to Circuit Court, Jackson County; Amos Lewis, Judge.

Ed Pippin and another were convicted of robbery, and they bring error.

Judgment reversed.

BROWN J., dissenting.

Syllabus by the Court.

SYLLABUS

The statute does not change the nature of the crime defined as robbery at common law, and does not in substance change the requirement of the common law as to the essentials of an indictment for robbery.

An indictment for robbery should state the name of the owner of the property taken, or that the owner is unknown.

The approved forms for an indictment for robbery at common law set forth the ownership of the property as well as the name of the person from whom it is taken.

In an indictment for robbery, it should be made to appear that the article taken belongs to some person other than the accused or that the party deprived of the possession through violence was entitled to the possession, as against the defendant. If the property taken belonged to the defendants, or they were entitled to the possession of it, the crime would not be robbery.

COUNSEL

John H. Carter, of Marianna, for plaintiffs in error.

Cary D Landis, Atty. Gen., and Roy Campbell, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

OPINION

WHITFIELD P.J.

The indictment herein is as follows:

'In the Name and By the Authority of the State of Florida:
'The grand Jurors of the State of Florida, impaneled and sworn to inquire and true presentment make in and for the body of the County of Jackson upon their oath do present that Peter J. Savage of the County of Jackson and State of Florida, on the 29th day of December in the year of our Lord, one thousand nine hundred and thirty in the County and State aforesaid an assault did then and there make upon on Theodore Doman and one Allan Orrick and did then and there unlawfully and feloniously rob, steal and take from the persons of the said Theodore Doman and Allan Orrick certain personal property, the subject of larceny, to-wit: one over coat, one leather top coat and one jacket or vest, a more particular description of which said property being to the Grand Jurors unknown, he the said Peter J. Savage being then and there armed with a deadly weapon, to-wit, a pistol, and with intent then and there if resisted, to kill or maim the said Theodore Doman and Allan Orrick; and the Grand Jurors aforesaid upon their oaths aforesaid do further say and present that one Ed Pippin and one C. C. Price were then and there feloniously present aiding, counseling, hiring and procuring the said Peter J. Savage and said felony, in the manner and by the means aforesaid, to do and commit; Contrary to the Statute,' etc.

Upon conviction, the defendants took writ of error and urge the legal insufficiency of the indictment and of the evidence to support the verdict and judgment.

'Robbery, at common law, is the felonious taking, without bona fide claim of right, of a thing of value from the person or presence of another, against his will, by force or by putting him in fear.' 24 Am. & Eng. Enc. Law (2d Ed.) p. 991. 'Robbery, at common law, is the taking, with intent to steal, of personal property in possession of another, from his person or in his presence, by violence or by putting him in fear.' 34 Cyc. p. 1796.

'Robbery at common law is defined as the felonious taking of money or goods of value from the person of another or in his presence, against his will, by violence or putting him in fear.' 23 R. C. L. p. 1139.

The statute provides that:

'Whoever assaults another and feloniously robs, steals and takes from his person or custody, money or other property which may be the subject of larceny, such robber being armed with a dangerous weapon, with the intent if resisted to kill or maim the person robbed, or, being so armed, wound or strike the person robbed, shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of years or for life imprisonment in the discretion of the court for and during a term of his natural life.' Section 7157, C. G. L. 1927.

The statute does not change the nature of the crime defined as robbery at common law, and does not in substance change the requirement of the common law as to the essentials of an indictment for robbery. The indictment...

To continue reading

Request your trial
12 cases
  • Johnson v. State, 44919
    • United States
    • Florida Supreme Court
    • April 3, 1974
    ...ownership are insufficient in that the information does not disclose the name of the owner of the property. The case of Pippin et al. v. State, 102 Fla. 1124, 136 So. 883, contains the following discussion of the question (page 884): 'An indictment for robbery should state the name of the o......
  • Blanco v. State
    • United States
    • Florida Supreme Court
    • March 17, 1942
    ... ... the information is fatally defective because of this ... allegation of ownership of the stolen property. Counsel cite ... many decisions of this Court to sustain their position, ... beginning with Stephens v. State, 92 Fla. 43, 109 ... So. 303. Also Pippin v. State, 102 Fla. 1124, 136 ... So. 883. It was held therein that the indictment should ... allege the ownership of the property, as well as the name of ... the person from whom it was taken. If the property alleged to ... have been taken was the property of the appellant, a crime ... would ... ...
  • Hamilton v. State
    • United States
    • Florida Supreme Court
    • July 16, 1938
    ... ... See as ... persuasive, Baldwin v. State, 46 Fla. 115, 35 So ... It is ... next contended by the plaintiff in error that the allegations ... of ownership are insufficient in that the information does ... not disclose the name of the owner of the property. The case ... of Pippin et al. v. State, 102 Fla. 1124, 136 So ... 883, contains the following discussion of the question (page ... 884): 'An indictment for robbery should state the name of ... the owner of the property taken, or that the owner is ... unknown. The approved forms at common law set forth the ... ...
  • Amos v. Chapman
    • United States
    • Florida Supreme Court
    • February 21, 1933
    ...146 So. 98 108 Fla. 360 AMOS v. CHAPMAN, Superintendent of State Prison. Florida Supreme CourtFebruary 21, 1933 ... Original ... proceedings by Jim Amos for writ of habeas corpus to be ... directed to ... The ... charge is in language fully equivalent to the language of the ... We held ... in the case of Pippin v. State, 102 Fla. 1124, 136 ... So. 883, that indictments attempting to charge the offense ... denounced by this section should allege the ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT