Spencer v. State

• Decision Date: 14 March 1899
• Parties: SPENCER v. STATE.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

32 S.E. 849

106 Ga. 692

SPENCER v. STATE.

Supreme Court of Georgia

March 14, 1899

Syllabus by the Court.

Suddenly snatching a purse, with intent to steal the same, from the hand of another, without using intimidation, and where there is no resistance by the owner, or injury to his person, does not constitute robbery.

Error from superior court, Glynn county; J. L. Sweat, Judge.

Frank Spencer, alias Joe Brown, was convicted of robbery, and brings error. Reversed.

Owens Johnson and A. D. Gale, for plaintiff in error.

John W Bennett, Sol. Gen., for the State.

FISH J.

Frank Spencer, alias Joe Brown, was indicted and tried for the offense of robbery. From the evidence submitted by the state (there was no evidence introduced by the defendant) it appears that Mrs. O'Connor and another lady were standing on a street in the city of Brunswick, when the accused approached them, and asked, "Will you please tell me where Capt. Dart lives?" and just as he said this he snatched a pocketbook containing $7.50 from the hand of Mrs O'Connor, and ran away with it. She testified that she did not have time to hold onto the book, it was all done so quickly; that she just had it in her hand, as ladies usually carry pocket books, and was not expecting it to be taken away from her, and was therefore not grasping it unusually tightly; that she did nothing at all to prevent him from taking it; that she did not consent or object to his taking it, as she did not have time to do either; that the accused had it, and was gone, before she knew it. The court charged the jury: "If you shall find it to be true that this defendant, in the county of Glynn, and on the date named, coming into contact with Mrs. Mary O' Connor upon the sidewalk, and entering into some conversation with her, or propounding some question to her, or to others who were with her, if you shall find that she held her purse openly in her hand, and this defendant, in full view of her, and with her knowledge, she seeing him, suddenly snatched her purse and its contents from her, without her consent, and ran off with it, the court charges you that if you shall find that to be true, and that this was done by this defendant with intent to steal the same, that would make, under the law of this state, a case of robbery, and in such event it would be your duty to convict the defendant." There was a verdict finding the accused guilty of robbery. He moved for a new trial upon the grounds that the verdict was contrary to law and the evidence, that the charge above quoted was error, and upon other grounds not necessary, in the view which we take of the case, to be passed upon. The motion was overruled, and he excepted.

The question which controls this case is whether the facts as proved constitute the offense of robbery, which is "the wrongful, fraudulent, and violent taking of money, goods or chattels from the person of another by force or intimidation without the consent of the owner." We have no difficulty, in deciding that this, under the facts, is not a case of robbery. Section 177 of the Penal Code, referring to larceny from the person, the general definition of which is given in the preceding section, says: "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 within this class of larceny, 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." The facts of this case bring it clearly within the provisions of this section. The accused, without using any intimidation, suddenly snatched the purse from the hand of Mrs. O'Connor and ran off with it. There was no injury to her person, nor any resistance or struggle to prevent him from taking the purse. All the circumstances of the case show that the purse was taken, not so much against as without her consent. The charge of the court was erroneous, because, under the hypothetical case stated by the court, without more, the offense would not be robbery, but would be larceny from the person, under the provision of the last-quoted section of the Penal Code. In Fanning's Case, 66 Ga. 167, the accused 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 the effort of the thief to extract his hand and the purse, the pocket was torn. She rushed upon him, and caught him by the coat, which, in his struggle to escape, was left, torn, in her possession. It was held that the offense was larceny from the...