State v. Calhoun
| Decision Date | 07 October 1887 |
| Citation | 72 Iowa 432,34 N.W. 194 |
| Parties | STATE v. CALHOUN. |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from district court, Mahaska county.
Defendant was indicted, and convicted of robbery, and now appeals to this court.Gesman & Prouty, for appellant.
A. J. Baker, Atty. Gen., for the State.
1. We will consider and dispose of the objections urged to the judgment of the district court in the order of their discussion in counsel's argument. The court below gave to the jury the following instructions:
“(2) It is provided by our statutes that ‘if any person with force or violence, or by putting in fear, steal and take from the person of another any property that is the subject of larceny, he is guilty of robbery.’
(3) Under this statutory provision, it is not essential that the stealing and taking, if any, was literally from the person, or, in other words, that the property, if any, was on, or attached to, or touching, the literal physical person of the party alleged to have been robbed; but it is sufficient if the stealing and taking, if any, was done in the immediate presence of such party, and while the property was under the control and in the custody of such party.
(4) If, therefore, you find from the evidence, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant, in this county and state, at a time within three years next preceding the finding of the indictment in this case, did steal and take from the immediate presence of the Nellie Baldwin named in the indictment the property named in the indictment, or some part of it, and that the stealing and taking, if any, was accomplished with force or violence towards said Nellie Baldwin, or by putting her in fear; and you further so find that the property, if any, thus stolen was at the time owned by, or in the possession of, said Nellie Baldwin, and was of some value,--then and in such case you should return a verdict of guilty of robbery. But if you do not so find as to these several matters, you cannot find defendant guilty of robbery.
(5) It is not necessary, in order to constitute a stealing and carrying away ‘in the immediate presence of said Nellie Baldwin,’ that it should have been done (if done) in her immediate view, or where she could see it done. And if you find from the evidence, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant made a violent assault upon said Nellie Baldwin, by choking her and causing her to fall upon the floor of one of the rooms or apartments of her house, and then tied her hands and feet for the purpose and with the intention of stealing some money or property in the house; and you further so find that she, through fear of personal violence, told defendant where her money or watch was in an adjoining room or rooms; and you further so find that thereupon defendant passed through a door or doors into such room or rooms, and did there, within hearing of said Nellie Baldwin, take and carry away from said room or rooms the property described in the indictment, or some part thereof; and you further so find that such property was under her immediate control, and that such taking, if any, was against the will of the said Nellie Baldwin, and was without any right, or claim of right, of defendant in said property, and with the intent to permanently deprive her thereof,--then and in such case there would be a sufficient stealing and taking from the ‘immediate presence’ of the said Nellie Baldwin within the meaning of the law.”
“(8) It is charged in the indictment that, at the time of the alleged robbery, the defendant was armed with a dangerous weapon, with intent, if resisted, to kill or main the said Nellie Baldwin, and, being so armed, did wound said Nellie Baldwin. If you find the defendant guilty of robbery, you will determine whether this charge in the indictment is sustained. The only evidence relied upon by the state as tending to show that defendant was armed with a dangerous weapon is the evidence tending to show that, at the time of the alleged robbery, defendant had with him the piece of cord or rope introduced in evidence. It is for you to say, from the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Smith-Anthony
...the victim by taking money from a safe where the victim could have prevented the taking if not intimidated by robber); State v. Calhoun, 72 Iowa 432, 436, 34 N.W. 194 (1887) (affirming that “presence” standard was satisfied where the defendant took money and watch from the victim after bind......
-
People v. Randolph
...that violence or putting in fear was the means used by the robber to take it." [Id. at 99, 185 N.W. 770, quoting State v. Calhoun, 72 Iowa 432, 34 N.W. 194, 196 (1887).] As evidenced by this analysis, the majority takes too narrow a view of the concept of "possession" when it states that "t......
-
Foster v. State
...victim's presence if it was taken from a room in a building other than that in which the victim was present, e.g., State v. Calhoun, 72 Iowa 432, 436, 34 N.W. 194, 196 (1887); Constantine, 342 A.2d at 737; from a car parked outside the building, e.g., Cobern, 273 Ala. at 551, 142 So.2d at 8......
-
Charette v. State
...property was taken from another room. See State v. Campbell, 41 Del. 342, 22 A.2d 390 (Del. Ct. Gen. Sessions 1941); State v. Calhoun, 72 Iowa 432, 34 N.W. 194 (1887); Commonwealth v. Homer, 235 Mass. 526, 127 N.E. 517 (1920); State v. Williams, 183 S.W. 308 (Mo. 1916); State v. Culver, 109......