State v. Lawrence
| Decision Date | 06 January 1891 |
| Parties | STATE v. LAWRENCE. |
| Court | Oregon Supreme Court |
Appeal from circuit court, Multnomah county; L.B. STEARNS, Judge.
The defendant was indicted for the crime of robbery, and convicted of the crime of larceny from the person. The charging part of the indictment is as follows: "The said Abe Lawrence, on the 28th day of October, A.D.1890, in the county of Multnomah, and state of Oregon, did feloniously in and upon one Geo. Lebo made an assault, and him, the said Geo. Lebo, did put in fear and in danger of his life and of great bodily harm, and one silver watch of the value of ten dollars did forcibly, violently, and against his, the said Geo. Lebo's, will, feloniously take, steal, and carry away, the said watch then and there being of the personal property of said Geo. Lebo, contrary," etc. No bill of exceptions is contained in the record, and the sole question therefore is whether or not the indictment is sufficient to sustain the judgment of conviction.
(Syllabus by the Court.)
An indictment which charges that L on the 28th day of October 1890, in the county of M. and state of Oregon, did feloniously in and upon G.L. make an assault, and him the said G.L. did put in fear and in danger of his life and of great bodily harm, and one silver watch, of the value of $10 did forcibly, violently, and against his, the said G.L.'s, will feloniously steal and carry away the said watch, and then and there being the personal property of the said G.L., will not sustain a conviction of the crime of larceny from the person.
An indictment for the crime of robbery under section 1742 Hill's Code, is defective, which fails to charge that the offense was committed by force and violence, or by putting in fear of force and violence, or assault, as the case may be.
A conviction for the crime of larceny from the person cannot be sustained under an indictment for robbery, which fails to charge that the property was taken from the person.
Gilbert J. McGinn, for appellant.
T.A. Stevens, Dist.Atty., and W.T. Hume, for the State.
STRAHAN, C.J., (after stating the facts as above.)
Section 1742, Hill's Code, defines the crime for which the pleader attempted to indict the defendant. That section provides: "If any person not being armed with a dangerous weapon shall by force and violence, or by assault or by putting in fear of force and violence or assault, rob, steal, or take from the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Casson
...then the conviction is fatally defective, and the cause must be returned to the grand jury for further consideration. State of Oregon v. Lawrence, 20 Or. 236, 25 P. 638. The defendant bases his principal ground for reversal upon the claim that the fourth-quoted specification in the indictme......
- State v. Robinson
-
State v. Zimmerlee
...contain allegations that the boots were taken From the person of Palmer By reason of the alleged assault. State v. Oregon v. Lawrence, 20 Or. 236, 25 P. 638 (1891), which set down such criteria, is relied upon by defendant. The indictment in that case was based upon the then existing unarme......
-
State v. Bailey
... ... violence. See 34 Cyc. 1803, and note. The crime of robbery is ... made out by proving that property was11 ... [178 P. 205] taken from the person by some one or more of the means ... enumerated in the statute. State v. Lawrence, 20 Or ... 236, 239, 25 P. 638 ... It was ... not error to permit the prosecution to ask Rawlings whether ... he placed the note in the hands of the bank for collection ... The state was entitled to trace the note, if there was one, ... from the time ... ...