Smith v. State

• Decision Date: 13 March 1903
• Parties: SMITH. v. STATE.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

43 S.E. 736

117 Ga. 329

SMITH.

v.STATE.

Supreme Court of Georgia.

March 13, 1903.

ROBBERY—EVIDENCE.

1. Where a purse, secured by a steel chain wrapped around the owner's finger is suddenly snatched by one intending to steal the same, and the force used is sufficient to break the chain and injure the owner's finger, the offense is robbery, and not larceny from the person.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

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

Ben Smith was convicted of robbery, and brings error. Affirmed.

F. R. Walker, for plaintiff in error.

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

LAMAR, J. The defendant offered to plead guilty to the offense of larceny from the person, contending that under the decisions of this court in Fanning v. State, 66 Ga. 167, and Spencer v. State, 106 Ga. 692, 32 S. E. 849, he could not properly be convicted of robbery. A comparison of these two cases with the common-law authorities and the Penal Code may be instructive, as the question presented by this record Is one of constant recurrence. In the Fanning Case it appeared "that the defendant slipped his hand into a lady's outside pocket, and furtively took therefrom a purse of money. Before he got the purse entirely out, she felt the hand, and tried to seize it, but the thief had succeeded, and the purse was gone. In extracting hand and purse, the pocket was torn, and when the lady turned she saw the thief looking unconcernedly at the houses on Whitehall street. She rushed upon him, and caught him by the coat, which, in his struggle to escape, was torn, and left in her possession." It was there held that "the criminal deed was consummated when the purse was taken from the lady." The fact that the pocket was torn in the effort to get the furtive hand out was not sufficient' to show such open force and violence as to make the crime robbery. The attempt and intent were private. His purpose was to take the purse privately, and without her knowledge. The pocket was torn in the effort to escape, rather than as a means of effecting the crime. In the Spencer Case a lady was holding her purse loosely, when her attention was diverted by the thief, who suddenly snatched the purse from her hand without intimidation, and without resistance on her part, or injury of any sort to her person. According to Jones v. Commonwealth (Ky.) 66 S. W. 633, 57 L. R. A. 432, even this was robbery. Robbery is defined in our Penal Code, $ 151, as the "wrongful, fraudulent and violent taking of money, goods or chattels from theperson of another by force or intimidation without the consent of the owner." "And any sort of secret, sudden, or wrongful taking from the person with the intent to steal, without using intimidation or open force and violence, shall be larceny from the person, though some small force be used by the thief to possess himself of the property: provided, there be no resistance by the owner, or injury to his person, and all the circumstances of the case show that the thing was taken, not so much against as without the consent of the owner." Pen. Code, § 177. Where a purse is held in the hand ever so lightly, some force must be exerted in order to snatch it from the owner, and some force must be used in order to withdraw a purse from the pocket, and it is this slight force that is referred to in Pen. Code, § 177. Anything beyond this...