State v. Patterson

• Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: WATKINS, J.
• Citation: State v. Patterson, 42 La. Ann. 934, 8 So. 529 (La. 1890)
• Decision Date: 01 October 1890
• Docket Number: 270
• Parties: THE STATE OF LOUISIANA v. TOM PATTERSON

8 So. 529

42 La.Ann. 934

THE STATE OF LOUISIANA v. TOM PATTERSON

No. 270

Supreme Court of Louisiana

October 1, 1890

APPEAL from the First District Court, Parish of Caddo. Hicks J.

J Henry Shepherd, District Attorney, for the State, Appellee.

J. W Jones, for Defendant and Appellant.

OPINION

WATKINS, J.

The indictment charges that the accused "did wilfully and feloniously, by force and violence, rob from the person of Fred. Sims a watch worth $ 16," etc.

Having been tried and convicted, his counsel filed a motion in arrest of judgment, on the ground that the indictment was defective and insufficient to support a conviction, because "it does not charge him with robbing the said Sims of the watch and chain against his will."

The District Judge disallowed the motion, because he regarded as sufficient the averment of the indictment that the watch and chain were taken from the prosecutor "by force and violence." He says that while it is true that "an indictment (for robbing) must state upon its face that the goods were taken against the will of the party assaulted, (yet) it seems (that) it may be good without the use of those specific words, if the words used convey the same meaning."

It is well settled that an indictment for robbery must set out, in substance, all the elements of that crime as a common law offence.

Such an indictment should state the crime as having been committed feloniously, violently and against the will, or by putting the person in fear.

An essential element of larceny is stealth, and that of robbery is force. The latter may be physically applied to the person robbed, or goods may be extorted from him by the employment of intimidation or putting him in fear. But manifestly either physical violence or intimidation implies a restraint of volition, nothing else; and the addition of the phrase "against his will" would have been an unnecessary tautology instead of a requisite element of description.

The use of force, or putting in fear, are terms to be employed in alternative only. The indictment must allege either force or putting in fear. 2 Bishop, Crim. Pl., Sec. 1005.

We do not understand that a contrary doctrine is announced in State vs. Durbin, 20 An. 408, or in State vs Cook, 20 An. 145. In the former it was said that "in an indictment for robbery from the person, the words feloniously, violently and against the will are essential and it is usual, though...