State v. Miller

• Decision Date: 05 May 1894
• Citation: 53 Kan. 324,36 P. 751
• Parties: STATE v. MILLER
• Court: Kansas Supreme Court

36 P. 751

53 Kan. 324

STATE v. MILLER

Supreme Court of Kansas

May 5, 1894

Syllabus

1. To constitute the crime of robbery by forcibly taking money from the person of its owner, it is not necessary that violence to the person of the owner should precede the taking of the money. It is sufficient if it be contemporaneous with the taking.

2. Where the court charged, in substance, that the violence to the person of the owner of the money must have been with intent to rob, and that the money must have been “obtained from the money drawer,” in the presence of the owner, by means of force and violence to his person and against his will, held that, under the facts of this case, the word “obtained” fairly expressed the same idea as the word “taken,” and that no error was committed by the use of the word.

Appeal from district court, Douglas county; A. W. Benson, Judge.

Fred Miller was convicted of robbery, and appeals. Affirmed.

Spangler & Brownell and G. W. Ellis, for appellant.

John T. Little, Atty. Gen., S.D. Bishop, and A. C. Mitchell, for appellee.

OPINION

ALLEN, J.

The defendant was prosecuted and convicted in the district court of Douglas county of the crime of robbery, and sentenced to confinement at hard labor in the penitentiary for 10 years. He appeals from the judgment.

It appears from the bill of exceptions that the state introduced testimony tending to prove the following facts: "That on the evening of the 26th day of August, 1893, the defendant came into the laundry of the complaining witness at about 10 o’clock at night to get a shirt he had left there, and laid the check for the shirt down on the counter, which the complaining witness took up, and got the shirt, and laid it on the counter. That the defendant then took out a quarter and laid it on the counter. That the complaining witness took the quarter, and put it in the money drawer, and took out five cents in change, and laid it on the counter. That the defendant then reached over the counter, and grabbed the money of the complaining witness in the drawer. Thereupon, the complaining witness caught his hand containing the money, and then the defendant said. ‘Let go of me, you son of a bitch; ’ and the defendant then cut the complaining witness on the hand with a knife. That the complaining witness then let go of him, and then the defendant ran, to get out of the door. That the complaining witness ran around the corner, and caught the defendant by the coat, as he went out of the door, and then the defendant turned, and cut the complaining witness with a knife across here (the complaining witness indicating his abdomen). That the complaining witness let go of him, and that the defendant then ran down the alley with the money." The defendant denied reaching into the money drawer and taking any money. The claim of error is based on the refusal of the court to give two instructions which were asked by the defendant, viz.: "(2) The court instructs the jury that, if they believe from the evidence that the defendant did not assault the complaining witness until after he had snatched the money from the money drawer, they cannot find him guilty as charged in the information. (3) The court instructs the jury that to constitute the crime of robbery, under the statute, the violence to the person of the complaining witness must have been applied prior to the taking of the money, and unless they so find they must acquit." The court, after reading to the jury the section of the statute on which the prosecution was based, and the information, charged the jury as follows: "(3) To this information the defendant has pleaded not guilty; and upon the issue so made, before he can be convicted, you must be satisfied from the evidence, beyond a reasonable doubt, that in this county, at or about the time charged, the defendant feloniously took from the money drawer of Jung Seung, in the presence of Jung Seung, and by force and violence to the person and against the will of Jung Seung, the bank bills described in the information, the property of Jung Seung, with intent to rob him of the same, as charged in the information. (4) To make out the offense of robbery, the violence to the person, as charged, must have been done by the defendant with felonious intent,-that is, with the intent thereby to rob Jung Seung of his money,-and the money must have been...