State v. Lucas, No. 48227

• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Kansas
• Writing for the Court: PER CURIAM
• Citation: 557 P.2d 1296,221 Kan. 88
• Parties: STATE of Kansas, Appellee, v. Gerald LUCAS, Appellant.
• Docket Number: No. 48227
• Decision Date: 11 December 1976

Page 1296

557 P.2d 1296 221 Kan. 88 STATE of Kansas, Appellee,
v.
Gerald LUCAS, Appellant. No. 48227. Supreme Court of Kansas. Dec. 11, 1976.

Syllabus by the Court

1. In an appeal by defendant from a jury verdict of guilty of aggravated robbery (K.S.A. 21-3427), the record is examined and it is held: The trial court did not err in (1) denying defendant's challenge of the information as defective, and (2) failing to instruct that intent was an essential element of the crime.

2. The holding in State v. Clingerman, 213 Kan. 525, 516 P.2d 1022, that the failure of the court to instruct on intent as an element of a crime was reversible error, is modified in the circumstances of this case as disclosed in the opinion.

Frank F. Eckdall, Kansas City, was on the brief for appellant.

Curt T. Schneider, Atty. Gen., Nick A. Tomasic, Dist. Atty., and Dennis L. Harris, Deputy Dist. Atty., Kansas City, were on the brief for appellee.

PER CURIAM:

This is a direct appeal by defendant from a jury verdict of guilty on one count of aggravated robbery (K.S.A. 21-3427).

On August 9, 1974, a Kansas City, Kansas, market was robbed. During the course of the robbery the culprits pointed a revolver at a store employee and relieved her of an undetermined amount of money and a cash register tray. Defendant was later apprehended riding in an automobile resembling the getaway car. Two handguns

Page 1297

fitting the description of those used in the robbery were recovered from the glove compartment of the car. Defendant was arrested and taken to police headquarters where the store clerk identified him as one of the robbers from a line-up.

On September 21, 1974, after being advised of his constitutional rights and signing a waiver, defendant gave a handwritten statement in which he admitted participation in the holdup.

At trial, the state presented testimony of the store employees and police officers, weapons recovered from the automobile, and defendant's confession. Defendant was found guilty and sentenced to a term of not less than fifteen years nor more than life.

Defendant appeals, alleging the information was defective in that it did not charge a crime or allege the property taken was [221 Kan. 89] not his property, and that the court erred in failing to instruct that intent was an essential element of the crime.

The information charges that defendant:

'. . . (D)id unlawfully, feloniously and wilfully take property, to-wit: money from the presence of Bernice Jones and Eugene Marshal . . . contrary to K.S.A. 21-3427.'

The sufficiency of indictments and informations is now governed by the guidelines of K.S.A. 22-3201(2). This court has repeatedly held that an information which charges an offense in the language of the statute or its equivalent is sufficient. (State v. Barry, 216 Kan. 609, 619, 533 P.2d 1308; State v. Hill, 211 Kan. 287, 296, 507 P.2d 342; Carithers v. State, 207 Kan. 607, 608, 485 P.2d 1368; State v. Chuning, 199 Kan. 215, 219, 428 P.2d 843.) The exact statutory words need not be used in the information if the meaning is clear. (State v. Hart, 33 Kan. 218, 6 P. 288; State v. Hazen, 160 Kan. 733, 165 P.2d 234; 67 Am.Jur.2d, Robbery, § 33, p. 49; 77 C.J.S. Robbery § 34, pp. 472-73.)

Defendant first claims the information was fatally defective in that it failed to...