Sledge v. State
| Decision Date | 19 October 1896 |
| Parties | SLEDGE. v. STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Robbery—Intent—Instructions—Statement of Accused.
1. Upon the trial of a criminal case, the trial judge, in his charge to the jury, with or without request, should instruct them as to the general principles of the law which of necessity must be implied by them in reaching a correct conclusion upon the questions submitted for their consideration.
2. An intent to steal is a substantive element in the commission of the offense of robbery, and a failure of the trial judge to so instruct a jury trying such a case is cause for a new trial. Especially is this true in a case in which one contention of the accused was the absence of such intent.
3. Where, upon the trial of such a case, the person accused makes a statement giving his version of the transaction in question and denying his guilt, a charge in these words: "In determining the various questions in the case, you must do that by looking to the testimony of the witnesses that have been sworn in the case, "—was not, under the decision of this court in Vaughn v. State, 16 S. E. 64, 88 Ga. 731 erroneous; but it would not have been inappropriate to have added some such language us the following: "And the statement of the accused, giving to the latter such force as you think it entitled to receive;" and this seemingly would be the better practice.
4. Except as above indicated, no questions are so made as will enable this court to determine them.
(Syllabus by the Court.)
Error from superior court, Bibb county; W. H. Felton, Jr., Judge.
Ben Sledge was convicted of robbery, and brings error. Reversed.
H. F. Strohecker, for plaintiff in error.
A. W. Lane, Sol. Gen., for the State.
The accused was indicted for the offense of robbery, was convicted, and moved for a new trial, among others, upon the ground that the court erred in failing to charge the jury that if they did not believe that he took the goods in question with intent to steal, then they should acquit; and upon the further ground that the court erred in charging the jury as follows: "In determining the various questions in the case, you must do that by looking to the testimony of the witnesses that have been sworn in the case."
1, 2. The definition of robbery, as expressed in section 151 of the Penal Code, is inaccurate for want of fullness. It omits the felonious intent as a constituent element of the offense. The animus furandi is as much involved in the commission of a robbery as in the commission of a larceny. It is as necessary to be alleged and proven in the one case as in the other. There can be no robbery without an intent to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Huff, 6344
...Texas and West Virginia. (21 Ann. Cas. 1143, note; State v. Jones, supra; State v. Oliver, 20 Mont. 318, 50 P. 1018; Sledge v. State, 99 Ga. 684, 26 S.E. 756; State Graves, 185 Mo. 713, 84 S.W. 904.) The confession of Von Hunter on Huff and Barney in their absence was prejudicial to their r......
-
State v. Fordham
... ... 52; Com. v. Clifford, 8 Cush. 215; Mathews v ... State, 4 Ohio St. 540; Com. v. Bean, 11 Cush. 414 ... Felonious ... intent requires the same allegation and proof as in larceny ... 2 Bishop's New Criminal Proc. 1007; Bishop's ... Directions and Forms, section 931; Sledge v. State, ... 26 S.E. 756; Mathews v. State. 4 Ohio St. 540 ... Robbery ... is compound larceny and under an indictment for robbery the ... defendant may be found guilty of larceny. The indictment must ... contain the essential allegations of larceny. Haley v ... State, 4 ... ...
-
Traxler v. State
... ... The court pointed out that the circumstances would be the issues developed by the evidence, and the defendant's statement, if any ... We must go back to the early case of Sledge v. State, 1896, 99 Ga. 684, 26 S.E ... Page 833 ... 756, where we find a fuller exposition on the subject to get an inkling into the process of interpolation or reading into the statute words not therein contained, whereby the court ended up in spite of its statutory definition, with the ... ...
-
Thomas v. State
...instruction clearly showing the required element of asportation essential to prove the crime of robbery. In the case of Sledge v. State, 99 Ga. 684, 26 S.E. 756 (1896), the Court 'There can be no robbery without an intent to steal, and hence it is legally impossible for the trial judge to g......