Snipes v. State
Decision Date | 28 February 1974 |
Docket Number | No. 274S45,274S45 |
Parties | Robert S. SNIPES, Appellant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee. |
Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
Rice & VanStone, William E. Weikert, Evansville, for appellant.
Theodore L. Sendak, Atty. Gen., Robert F. Colker, Asst. Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for appellee.
Appellant has petitioned this Court to grant transfer from a decision of the Court of Appeals affirming his conviction of the offense of armed robbery.
The opinion of the Court of Appeals contains the erroneous statement that 'robbery is not a 'specific intent' crime.'
This Court has recently stated that all of the common law malum in se crimes have always included the mens rea as an element. Gregory v. State (1973), Ind., 291 N.E.2d 67, 34 Ind.Dec. 593.
The question in the case at bar arose because of the giving of the State's Tendered Instruction No. 3 which reads as follows:
The above instruction was taken from the case of Madden v. State (1970), 254 Ind. 628, 632, 261 N.E.2d 847, 22 Ind.Dec. 591, where this Court quoted the above language with approval.
The correct statement of the law in Indiana concerning voluntary intoxication as a defense was set out in Emler v. State (1972), Ind., 286 N.E.2d 408, 412, 32 Ind.Dec. 337, 341, and reads as follows:
The Madden case is, therefore, specifically overruled for the reason that the above quoted instruction therein approved is erroneous in that it fails to state that intoxication may be a defense, if the defendant was so intoxicated as...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Greider v. Duckworth
...specific intent. Bates v. State, 409 N.E.2d 623, 625 (Ind.1980), citing Larkin v. State, 393 N.E.2d 180 (Ind.1979); Snipes v. State, 261 Ind. 581, 307 N.E.2d 470 (1974). See also James v. State, 265 Ind. 384, 354 N.E.2d 236 The court in Carter v. State, 408 N.E.2d 790, 799 (Ind.App.1980), n......
-
Carter v. State
...(" '(C)onviction for the crime of robbery . . . requires proof only of general criminal intent and knowledge.' ") with Snipes v. State, (1974) 261 Ind. 581, 307 N.E.2d 470 (reverses Court of Appeals decision which held "robbery is not a 'specific intent' crime"); and Ashbaugh v. State, (198......
-
Murphy v. State
...State, (1903) 161 Ind. 288, 68 N.E. 286. Neither of these cases states the rule in the absolute terms offered here. In Snipes v. State, (1974) 261 Ind. 581, 307 N.E.2d 470, this Court was faced with a petition for transfer in which the trial court and the Court of Appeals approved an instru......
-
Smith v. State
...908; Dawson v. State (1975), Ind.App., 324 N.E.2d 839; Snipes v. State (1973), Ind.App., 298 N.E.2d 503 (reversed on other grounds, Ind., 307 N.E.2d 470). Cf. Winston v. State (1975), Ind., 323 N.E.2d 228. And this court will not reweigh the evidence to reach a different conclusion. Smith v......