State v. Broderick
| Decision Date | 31 March 1875 |
| Citation | 59 Mo. 318 |
| Parties | STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent, v. RICHARD BRODERICK, Appellant. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from St. Louis Criminal Court.
J. D. Johnson, for Appellant.
I. The snatching of the chain with merely force enough to break it from the watch, and straighten the hook in the button hole, is not the violence intended by the statute. (.)
II. The violence, to constitute robbery, should occur before the taking, and induce the surrender.
J. C. Normille, for Respondent, cited 1 Bish. Crim. Law, § 1167; 2 Whart. Crim. Law, (6 Ed.) § 1701; People vs. McClosky, 5 Park., 299, and the People vs. Hall, 6 Park., 643.
The accused was indicted and convicted of robbery in the first degree, and the facts show that at about two o'clock in the night time, the prosecutor was walking along one of the streets in the city of St. Louis, and that he had exposed on his person a watch chain, one end of which was fastened by a hook to the button hole of his vest, and the other to a watch in his vest pocket; that defendant and another person came out of an alley and walked across the pavement in front of the prosecutor, and that defendant suddenly turned around and, without saying anything, seized prosecutor's watch chain, and in doing so, broke it loose from the watch and the button hole; that the prosecutor endeavored to recover the chain but did not succeed, as the defendant in the altercation struck him, and he then ran. Immediately thereafter a policeman arrested the defendant and took the watch chain away from him.
The court instructed the jury in reference to the crime of robbery in the first degree, essentially in the language of the statute, and its charge in this regard was entirely unexceptionable; but at the request of the State, it gave the further declaration that the violence which constituted robbery, as charged in the indictment, was sustained by the proof of force used by the defendant sufficiently great to break the chain, and by the exercise of such violence in taking and carrying away the property in question.
It is now contended that the instruction just referred to was erroneous, and that the conviction was wrong, because it did not appear that any threats or intimidation were used previous to the taking of the property, or that the prosecutor was put in fear of immediate injury to his person. The statute declares that “every person who shall be convicted of feloniously taking the property of another from his person, or in his presence, and against his will, by violence to his person, or by putting him in fear of some immediate injury to his person, shall be adjudged guilty of robbery in the first degree.” (1 Wagn. Stat., p. 456, § 20.) The statute has made no new distinction nor declared any new principle. At common law, robbery was defined to be the felonious and forcible taking of the property of another from his person, or in his presence, against his will, by violence, or by putting him in fear.
Upon this Mr. East observes “that no sudden taking of a thing unawares from the person, as by snatching anything from the hand or head, is sufficient to constitute a robbery, unless some injury be done to the person, or unless there be some previous struggle for the possession of the property.” (2 East P. C., 708), and such is the ruling of the New York Court. But in the later editions of Hawkins (1 Hawk. P. C., Curw. Ed., p. 214, § 9), it is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
the State v. Parker
... ... Sommers, 12 Mo.App. 374. The strongest case in Missouri, ... in support of the contention of the respondent that there is ... sufficient proof, in this case of the necessary force to make ... out a case against the defendant, is the case of State v ... Broderick, 59 Mo. 345, and the facts in that case are ... very much stronger as to the force used than the facts ... warrant in this case. The respondent seems to rely on this ... case, to sustain the conviction of the defendant and copies ... in its brief nearly all the opinion of the Broderick case, ... ...
-
State v. Brown
... ... Rep. (Cal.) ... 878; Long v. State, 12 Ga. 293; State v ... Hollyway, 41 Iowa 200; Ward v. Commonwealth, 14 ... Bush, 233; Murphy v. People, 3 Hun, 114; State ... v. Curtis, 71 N.C. 56; Jordan v. Com., 25 ... Gratt. 943; 2 Wharton, Crim. Law [7 Ed.] sec. 1697; State ... v. Broderick, 59 Mo. 320. (4) The court erred in not ... submitting to the jury the question of intent in taking the ... money. Jordan v. Com., 25 Gratt. 943; People v ... Hall, 6 Park Cr. 642; Johnson v. Com., 24 ... Gratt. 555. (5) The court should have told the jury to find ... the taking was done ... ...
-
State v. Medley
... ... 2), 68 S.W.2d 696, ... 698(5); State v. Roderman, 297 Mo. 143, 147, 248 S.W. 964, ... 965; State v. Weinhardt, 253 Mo. 629, 636, 161 S.W. 1151, ... 1152; State v. Smith, 119 Mo. 439, 446, 24 S.W. 1000, ... [3]54 C.J., sec. 25, p. 1017; 46 Am. Jur., ... sec. 14, p. 145; State v. Broderick, 59 Mo. 318, 320-1; State ... v. White, 326 Mo. 1000, 1003, 34 S.W.2d 79, 80(1) ... [4]State v. Steenbergen, 334 Mo. 880, 881(2), ... 68 S.W.2d 684, 685(2); State v. Lasson, 292 Mo. 155, 171(6), ... 238 S.W. 101, 105(6) ... [5]Powell v. Alabama, 287 U.S. 45, 70, 77 ... L.Ed. 158, 53 S.Ct ... ...
- Brady v. State