Robinson v. State, No. 22,051.

Docket NºNo. 22,051.
Citation177 Ind. 263, 97 N.E. 929
Case DateMarch 15, 1912
CourtSupreme Court of Indiana

177 Ind. 263
97 N.E. 929

ROBINSON
v.
STATE.

No. 22,051.

Supreme Court of Indiana.

March 15, 1912.


Appeal from Circuit Court, Allen County; E. O'Rourke, Judge.

Delos Robinson was convicted of robbery, and he appeals. Affirmed.


Phil B. Colerick and Samuel M. Hench, for appellant. Thomas M. Honan, Thos. H. Branaman, Edwin Corr, and Jas. E. McCullough, for the State.

COX, J.

The appellant was convicted of the crime of robbery under the provisions of section 1 of the act of March 5, 1909 (Acts 1909, p. 170), and was given an indeterminate sentence of imprisonment in the state reformatory for a period of not less than five nor more than fourteen years, fined, and disfranchised.

The section of the act in question defines the crime of robbery, and provides a penalty, such as was imposed in this case. It also provides that the perpetration of an assault, or assault and battery with intent to commit robbery, shall carry the same penalty as provided for robbery.

The affidavit on which appellant was tried and convicted contains three counts, charging appellant with assault and battery with intent to commit robbery, with robbery, and with petit larceny. Appellant assails the affidavit in this court for the first time by assigning as error that the affidavit, and each count, does not state facts sufficient to constitute a public offense.

[1][2] No complaint is made of any defect in the charging parts of the first and second counts of the affidavit, which charged, respectively, assault and battery with intent to commit robbery, and robbery; and manifestly they do formally and properly allege facts constituting those offenses and their commission by appellant. If not indeed directly conceded, this is not denied by appellant's counsel; but under this assignment of error they claim that the affidavit will not sustain the conviction, because the record fails to show that it was indorsed “approved by me” by the prosecuting attorney, as required by section 1990, Burns 1908. This court has held, in Cole v. State, 169 Ind. 393, 82 N. E. 796, that such an omission is fatal to an affidavit on a motion to quash, and counsel rely upon that case to sustain their contention in this. If the defect which is made the basis of appellant's claim had in fact existed, and appellant had interposed a timely motion to quash, it would, under this decision, have been error to overrule it. But no such motion was made. Defects and irregularities, however, which will compel an indictment or...

To continue reading

Request your trial
42 practice notes
  • Julius Keller Const. Co. v. Herkless, No. 8647.
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • 7 October 1915
    ...no question for our consideration. Sections 344 and 348, Burns 1914; Combs v. Combs, 56 Ind. App. 656, 105 N. E. 944;Robinson v. State, 177 Ind. 263, 97 N. E. 929. [3][4] Each appellant challenges instructions 9, 11, and 13. Appellant company challenges also No. 10, and appellant city No. 8......
  • Pittsburgh, C., C. & St. L. Ry. Co. v. Home Ins. Co. of New York, No. 22479.
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • 13 April 1915
    ...of the act of 1911, supra, this assignment of error and points raised under it can avail appellant nothing. Robinson v. State (1912) 177 Ind. 263, 266, 97 N. E. 929;Hay v. State, 178 Ind. 478, 98 N. E. 712;Boos v. State (1914) 105 N. E. 117;Stiles v. Hasler (App. 1914) 104 N. E. 878;Combs v......
  • Boos v. State , No. 22,548.
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • 30 April 1914
    ...case that the indictment does not state a public offense, can be of no avail. Hay v. State, 178 Ind. 478, 98 N. E. 712;Robinson v. State, 177 Ind. 263-265, 97 N. E. 929). [2] The objection made to the indictment is that it charges the commission of an offense at an impossible time, that is,......
  • Cox v. State, No. 26045.
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • 10 June 1932
    ...the rule so that it is now held that an indictment cannot be so questioned for the first time in this court. Robinson v. State (1912) 177 Ind. 263, 97 N. E. 929;Hay v. State (1912), 178 Ind. 478, 98 N. E. 712, Ann. Cas. 1915C, 135;Robinson v. State (1915) 184 Ind. 208, 110 N. E. 980;Scherer......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
45 cases
  • Julius Keller Const. Co. v. Herkless, No. 8647.
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • 7 October 1915
    ...no question for our consideration. Sections 344 and 348, Burns 1914; Combs v. Combs, 56 Ind. App. 656, 105 N. E. 944;Robinson v. State, 177 Ind. 263, 97 N. E. 929. [3][4] Each appellant challenges instructions 9, 11, and 13. Appellant company challenges also No. 10, and appellant city No. 8......
  • Pittsburgh, C., C. & St. L. Ry. Co. v. Home Ins. Co. of New York, No. 22479.
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • 13 April 1915
    ...of the act of 1911, supra, this assignment of error and points raised under it can avail appellant nothing. Robinson v. State (1912) 177 Ind. 263, 266, 97 N. E. 929;Hay v. State, 178 Ind. 478, 98 N. E. 712;Boos v. State (1914) 105 N. E. 117;Stiles v. Hasler (App. 1914) 104 N. E. 878;Combs v......
  • Boos v. State , No. 22,548.
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • 30 April 1914
    ...case that the indictment does not state a public offense, can be of no avail. Hay v. State, 178 Ind. 478, 98 N. E. 712;Robinson v. State, 177 Ind. 263-265, 97 N. E. 929). [2] The objection made to the indictment is that it charges the commission of an offense at an impossible time, that is,......
  • Cox v. State, No. 26045.
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • 10 June 1932
    ...the rule so that it is now held that an indictment cannot be so questioned for the first time in this court. Robinson v. State (1912) 177 Ind. 263, 97 N. E. 929;Hay v. State (1912), 178 Ind. 478, 98 N. E. 712, Ann. Cas. 1915C, 135;Robinson v. State (1915) 184 Ind. 208, 110 N. E. 980;Scherer......
  • 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