Pride v. State

• Decision Date: 15 February 1906
• Citation: 124 Ga. 791,53 S.E. 192
• Parties: PRIDE. v. STATE.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

53 S.E. 192

(124 Ga. 791)

PRIDE.

v.STATE.

Supreme Court of Georgia.

Feb. 15, 1906.

Robbery-Instructions.

On the trial of one charged, under the Penal Code 1895, § 151, with robbery by force and intimidation, it is error to charge the provisions of the amendment to that section (Acts 1903, p. 43), declaring that the sudden snatching, taking, or carrying away any money, etc., from the owner or person in possession thereof, without the consent of the owner or person in control thereof, shall also be robbery.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Error from Superior Court, Fulton County; L. S. Roan, Judge.

Jesse Pride was convicted of robbery, and brings error. Reversed.

Robt. L. Rogers, for plaintiff in error.

C. D. Hill, Sol. Gen., for the State.

FISH, C. J. Jesse Pride was Indicted for robbery. The Indictment charged that on a given day, in Fulton county, he "did, from the person of Mrs. B. F. Allen, wrongfully, fraudulently, by force and intimidation, violently take, without the consent of her, the said Mrs. B. F. Allen, and with Intent to steal the same, four dollars and forty-four cents In money, " etc. On the trial Mrs. Allen testified that the accused came to her and her husband, in Fulton county, estensibly for the purpose of buying butter from them, and asked if they could change a five-dollar bill. She said: "I first told him we could not; but I counted the money and said, 'Yes; I believe I can.' And I had it in my hand and went to hand It to him, and he had the five in his hand, and I thought he was going to hand it to me, but he just grabbed mine and ran. Of course, he hurt my hand. He scratched my hand." The court, in charging the jury, read 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." He then instructed the jury that this section had been amended by the act of August 6, 1903, and then read to them the amendment, which added to such section the following: "Or the sudden snatching, taking or carying away any money, goods, chattels, or anything of value from the owner or person in possession or control thereof." The accused was found guilty, and thereupon moved for a new trial; one of the grounds of the motion being that the court erred in giving in charge the amendment to section 151 of the Penal Code of 1895, because the provisions of such amendments were not applicable to the charge In the indictment. A new trial was refused, and the accused excepted.

Section 151 of the Penal Code, prior to Its amendment by the act of 1903, defined two grades of robbery, viz.,...