State v. Rowan

• Decision Date: 13 February 1915
• Docket Number: 12480.
• Citation: 84 Wash. 158,146 P. 374
• Court: Washington Supreme Court
• Parties: STATE v. ROWAN.

146 P. 374

84 Wash. 158

STATE v. ROWAN.

No. 12480.

Supreme Court of Washington

February 13, 1915

Department 1. Appeal from Superior Court, King County; J. T. Ronald Judge.

Edward Rowan was convicted of robbery and as an habitual criminal and he appeals. Affirmed.

Robert Welch and John F. Dore, both of Seattle, for appellant.

John F Murphy and S. H. Steele, both of Seattle, for the State.

HOLCOMB J.

Appeal from conviction of the crime of robbery and further conviction of being an habitual criminal. The information charging robbery accuses the appellant and two others as follows:

'That they, said Joseph Driscoll, Edward Rowan, and Joseph Conroy, and each of them, in the county of King, state of Washington, on the 27th day of January, 1914, did then and there willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously, by means of force and violence to the person of one Ernest D. Sather, and by putting said Ernest D. Sather in fear of injury to his person, from the person and against the will of said Ernest D. Sather, one (1) watch, one (1) pocketknife, one (1) pair of gloves, and one (1) fountain pencil, the property of said Ernest D. Sather, take, steal, and carry away.'

Upon a verdict of guilty, appellant moved for a new trial, which motion was denied. Thereafter a supplemental information was filed, charging him with being an habitual criminal, as follows:

'That the said Edward Rowan, on the 19th day of December, 1907, in the county of San Francisco and state of California, was then and there duly and legally convicted of the crime of grand larceny, the same being a felony at that time and at all times since under the laws of the state of Washington.

'That on the 17th day of November, 1909, in San Francisco county and state of California, the said Edward Rowan was then and there duly and legally convicted of the crime of robbery, the same being a felony at that time and at all times since under the laws of the state of Washington.

'That on the 11th day of March, 1914, the said Edward Rowan, in the county of King and state of Washington, was then and there duly and legally convicted of the crime of robbery, the same being a felony.'

Thereupon appellant was tried and convicted of all material facts stated in said supplemental information.

Appellant moved for a new trial under the supplemental information, and at the same time moved in arrest of judgment, attacking the validity of the original information for robbery; and also in arrest of judgment attacking the validity of the supplemental information, all of which motions were denied.

1. Appellant urges that it was error to overrule the motions for a new trial upon a conviction on the original information for robbery, because the information did not allege the value of the goods alleged to have been taken, or that they were of value. Under our statute (Rem. & Bal. Code, § 2418) 'robbery is the unlawful taking of personal property from the person of another, or in his presence, against his will, by means of force or violence or fear of injury, immediate or future, to his person or property, or the person or property of a member of his family, or of any one in his company at the time of the robbery.'

It will be seen that the value of the goods is not an element of the crime of robbery under this statute. It is, no doubt, true that respondent could have framed an information charging the appellant with robbery which would have included larceny both grand and petit, by making the necessary allegation of the value of the property taken, but it was not necessary for the respondent to do so. It could omit the lesser offenses or degrees of the offense if it so desired. In this information the offense charged was simply robbery, and included none of the lesser offenses, unless it be that of petit larceny. It may be, though it is not necessary to decide here, that the information for robbery, as drawn, included the lesser offense of petit larceny. In framing indictments or informations under the various statutes, it is not necessary to state the value of the property, unless the degree of the crime for which the accused may be indicted or convicted depends thereon. 18 Ency. Pl. & Pr. 1229.

The value of the property is immaterial so it has some value. There is no occasion, as there is in larceny, for alleging the value, as the punishment is not made to depend upon the value of the property taken. McClain, Crim. Law, vol. 1, § 472.

Appellant cites cases from this court: State v. Johnson, 19 Wash. 410, 53 P. 667; State v. Morgan, 31 Wash. 226, 71 P. 723; State v. Dengel, 24 Wash. 49, 63 P. 1104; State v....