Smith v. State
| Decision Date | 03 June 1914 |
| Docket Number | 120 |
| Citation | 65 So. 693,11 Ala.App. 153 |
| Parties | SMITH v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Butler County; A.E. Gamble, Judge.
Pete Smith was indicted for robbery, convicted of assault with intent to rob, and he appeals. Reversed and remanded.
The following charges were refused to defendant:
(1) Defendant cannot be convicted of assault and battery if you believe the evidence. (2) Defendant cannot be convicted of an assault with intent to rob, if you believe the evidence. (3) If, from the evidence, you are reasonably satisfied that Claude Moorer is the person who took the money from Jesse Frank, and that defendant did not aid or abet him in the taking, you should acquit defendant. (4) If from the evidence you are reasonably satisfied that Claude Moorer is the person who took the money from Jesse Frank, and that defendant did not aid or abet him in the taking, then you cannot find him guilty of robbery or assault with intent to rob.
The record of the organization of the court fails to show an arraignment, order for a special venire, or the drawing of a special venire, but merely shows the organization of the court, and the drawing and organizing of the regular venires for the week.
Powell & Hamilton, of Greenville, for appellant.
R.C Brickell, Atty. Gen., and T.H. Seay, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
The testimony of Arthur Boykin tended to prove that the defendant did not take anything from the person of Jesse Frank, the alleged victim of the robbery charged. But the testimony of this witness, as well as other testimony in the case, had a tendency to prove that the shooting of Frank by the defendant was a result of or accompanied with an intent on the part of the latter forcibly to take from the former's person money just previously won by him in a crap game in which the two had been engaged. In other words, there was evidence tending to prove that the defendant assaulted Frank with intent to rob him, but did not consummate the intended robbery or in any way participate in a robbery or theft which there was evidence tending to prove was subsequently committed by Claude Moorer. The charge of robbery includes the charges of an assault and battery and of an assault with intent to rob. Rambo v. State, 134 Ala. 71, 32 So 650; Code, §§ 6311, 7315. As there was evidence tending to prove that the defendant was guilty of an assault and battery or of an...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Norris v. State, 6 Div. 213
...was without authority to accept guilty plea to offense of Robbery. Ex parte Jenkins, 38 Ala.App. 117, 76 So.2d ; Smith v. State, 11 Ala.App. 153, 155, 65 So. 693 (1914)." We find no appropriate application of Smith v. State. In Ex parte Jenkins, the court, by petition for writ of error, rev......
-
Harris v. State
...and battery, simple assault, or larceny are included in the greater offense. Rambo v. State, 134 Ala. 71, 32 So. 650; Smith v. State, 11 Ala.App. 153, 65 So. 693.' We quote also from Howard v. State, 41 Ala.App. 360, 132 So.2d 384: 'While these charges fail to define the offense and are not......
-
Love v. State
... ... State, 156 Ala. 78, 47 So. 218; McBryde [16 Ala.App. 46] ... v. State, 156 Ala. 44, ... [75 So. 191.] Franklin v. State, 145 Ala. 669, 39 ... So. 979; Daughdrill v. State, 113 Ala. 7, 21 So. 378; ... Hutto v. State, 169 Ala. 19, 53 So. 809; ... Higginbottom v. State, 50 Ala. 133; Smith v ... State, 11 Ala.App. 153, 65 So. 693; Code 1907, §§ 6311, ... Reversed ... and ... ...
-
McCoy v. State, 6 Div. 994
...that the fact that he was just put to trial without a jury on a capital felony, deprived him of his rights. See: Smith v. State, 11 Ala.App. 153, 155, 65 So. 693; Gandy v. State, 1962. The record must show affirmatively a compliance with the requirements of the statute as to the jury for th......