Rivers v. State
| Decision Date | 02 May 1933 |
| Docket Number | 22622. |
| Parties | RIVERS v. STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Syllabus by the Court.
Proof that accused committed robbery in any of three ways charged in indictment would support general verdict of guilty.
Where crime charged has two grades, general verdict of guilty will be construed as finding accused guilty of highest grade, and proof must support verdict for highest grade.
"Robbery by intimidation" is same as "putting in fear" at common law, and is robbery by constructive force (Pen Code 1910, § 148).
"Robbery by force" implies violence and injury to person or struggle to retain possession of property (Pen. Code 1910, § 148).
"Robbery by sudden snatching" is where only force used is that necessary to take property from owner, who is off guard, and where owner does not resist and is not injured (Pen. Code 1910, § 148).
Slightest change of location whereby complete dominion of property is transferred from owner to trespasser is sufficient asportation to support robbery conviction (Pen. Code 1910, § 148).
"Custody" and "possession" are distinguished in that delivery of goods may give mere "custody" thereof while technical "possession" remains in one delivering goods, or delivery may divest him of "possession."
Not charging punishment for robbery by intimidation held not error, where evidence showed robbery by force.
Evidence that accused, pretending to purchase suit, grabbed suit when it was wrapped and struck owner, notwithstanding he threw package back after owner screamed, warranted conviction for robbery by force (Pen. Code 1910, § 148).
1. The indictment charged the commission of the same felony in three ways. If the proof showed that the defendant committed the crime charged in any one of the three ways a general verdict of guilty is good. However, when the crime charged has two grades, a general verdict of guilty will be construed as finding the defendant guilty of the highest grade, and the proof would have to support the verdict for the highest grade.
2. Robbery by intimidation is the same as "putting in fear" at common law, and is constructive force, as where a person through fear is induced to part with his property. Robbery by actual force implies violence. If there is any injury done to the person, or if there is a struggle to retain possession of the property before it is taken, it is the force referred to in our Penal Code. Robbery by sudden snatching is where no other force is used than is necessary for the thief to obtain the possession of the property from the owner, who is off his guard, where there is no resistance by the owner or injury to his person.
3. "The slightest change of location whereby the dominion of the property is transferred from the true owner to the trespasser is sufficient asportation." "It is not necessary that the property be permanently appropriated."
4. "There is a distinction between custody and possession." The owner of goods by delivering them to another, may give such other person the mere custody or charge of the goods, the technical possession remaining in himself, or he may by such delivery divest himself of the possession of the goods.
5. The evidence in this case showing robbery by force and not robbery by intimidation, it was only necessary to charge the punishment for the former.
6. The evidence authorized the verdict.
Error from Superior Court, Chatham County; Peter W. Meldrim, Judge.
Peter Rivers was convicted of an offense, and he brings error.
Affirmed.
Fred A Tuten, of Savannah, for plaintiff in error.
Walter C. Hartridge, Sol. Gen., and Julian Hartridge, Sol. Gen both of Savannah, for the State.
The indictment in this case contained two counts: (1) Robbery by force and intimidation and (2) robbery by sudden snatching. The jury returned a general verdict of guilty. A motion for a new trial was overruled, and the defendant excepted.
The indictment charged the commission of the same felony in three ways. Pride v. State, 125 Ga. 748, 749, 54 S.E. 686. If the proof showed that in any one of the three ways the defendant committed the crime charged, a general verdict of guilty is good. However, when the crime charged has two grades, a general verdict of guilty will be construed as finding the defendant guilty of the higher grade, viz. robbery by force, and the proof would have to support the verdict for the higher grade. Long v. State, 12 Ga. 293; Dean v. State, 43 Ga. 218. The gist of the testimony for the state was in part that the defendant, a stranger, went into the store of the prosecutrix to see a suit of clothes; that she showed him a suit worth $2.50, wrapped it in a piece of paper, and put it on the counter, and waited for the money. The defendant grabbed the suit of clothes with one hand and simultaneously hit the prosecutrix in the face with the other hand, breaking her glasses. She and fled. He struck the daughter of the prosecutrix with an unopen knife, cutting her face.
Ground 1 of the amendment to the motion for a new trial alleges that the court did not charge the law applicable to the offense of assault with intent to rob. There is no merit in this ground. The evidence showed that the offense was consummated. Ground 2 of the motion alleges error because the judge failed to charge on robbery by intimidation, and confined himself to robbery by force by charging only the punishment for robbery by force and not charging the...
To continue reading
Request your trial