State v. Slider, 13149
| Decision Date | 01 May 1973 |
| Docket Number | No. 13149,13149 |
| Citation | 196 S.E.2d 85,156 W.Va. 653 |
| Parties | STATE of West Virginia v. George F. SLIDER, Jr. |
| Court | West Virginia Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
1. Where instructions are given the jury in which an element of the crime is omitted, it is not reversible error if other consistent and correct instructions given include such omitted element and the instruction or instructions in which such element is missing when read conjunctively with the curative instruction do not mislead or confuse the jury.
2. 'The sentence for the crime of armed robbery must be for a definite term of not less than ten years and the imposition of an indeterminate sentence of from ten years to life for such crime constitutes error.' Point 5, syllabus, State v. Chaffin, W.Va., 192 S.E.2d 728 (1972).
Wilson, Frame & Rowe, Richard E. Rowe, Morgantown, for plaintiff in error.
Chauncey H. Browning, Jr., Atty. Gen., Willard A. Sullivan, Richard E. Hardison, Asst. Attys. Gen., Charleston, for defendant in error.
This is an appeal from a final judgment of the Circuit Court of Monongalia County of February 5, 1971, which sentenced the defendant, George F. Slider, Jr., to serve an indeterminate term of from ten years to life imprisonment in the West Virginia State Penitentiary after being convicted by a jury for the crime of armed robbery.
The defendant was charged in an indictment returned by the Grand Jury of Monongalia County with the crime of armed robbery of one James Petroski and was also charged with other lesser included offenses. The facts adduced in the trial on behalf of the State demonstrated that at approximately 5:55 p.m. on December 2, 1969, the prosecuting witness, Petroski, was in the process of receiving a payment on a charge account from a customer of Biafora's, a mens clothing store in the city of Morgantown which employed Petroski as a salesman. At that time and place, two men entered the store. One of the men armed with a pistol approached Petroski while the other remained near the door of the establishment. Upon reaching Petroski, the man holding the gun, placed a bag on the counter and instructed Petroski to put money contained in the store's cash register in the bag. This was done by Petroski while being held at gun point and the two men immediately left the store. The whole transaction took no more than four minutes. This defendant was subsequently apprehended in Frederick County, Maryland and returned to this jurisdiction for trial. Uncontroverted evidence offered by the State at the trial resulted in the direct identification of a pistol found in the defendant's possession as the weapon used in the holdup. The customer who was present in the store at the time of the robbery and the assistant manager of the clothing store made direct and positive identification of the defendant as being the person who held Petroski at gun point while taking money from him. Further testimony offered established other links in the chain of evidence.
At the completion of the State's case, counsel for the defendant moved for a directed verdict which motion was overruled by the court. The defendant presented no evidence or testimony in the trial, which resulted in a conviction of the defendant for the crime of armed robbery.
The defendant lists two assignments of error. These assigned errors are the giving of State's Instructions Nos. 6, 7 and 9 over the objection of defense counsel, and the indeterminate sentence of ten years to life imprisonment which was pronounced by the Circuit Court of Monongalia County.
The first assignment of error relating to the aforementioned instructions given by the trial court over the objection of defense counsel is without merit. The defendant contends that each of these instructions dealing with the definition of the crime of robbery lacked explication of the essential element of intent, and, therefore, did not sufficiently define that crime. This Court has held in numerous decisions that when an otherwise correct instruction is incomplete in some respect, it may be read in conjunction with all of the other instructions. If when so considered it is apparent that all the instructions would not mislead the jury and that the incomplete or missing element is augmented by a supplemental instruction, resulting in a correct and complete statement of the law as pertains to the facts of the case, the verdict will not be disturbed. State v. Harlow, 137 W.Va. 251, 71 S.E.2d 330 (1952); State v. Cobb, 122 W.Va. 97, 7 S.E.2d 443 (1940); State v. DeBoard, 119 W.Va. 396, 194 S.E. 349 (1937).
State's Instruction No. 10 which...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Hatfield
...rubric that instructions should be considered in their entirety. State v. Milam, W.Va., 226 S.E.2d 433 (1976); State v. Slider, 156 W.Va. 653, 196 S.E.2d 85 (1973); State v. Snider, 81 W.Va. 522, 94 S.E. 981 (1918). State's Instruction No. 1 clearly delineated the critical difference betwee......
-
State v. Houston
...years." 2 We have held in Syllabus Point 5 of State v. Chaffin, 156 W.Va. 264, 192 S.E.2d 728 (1972), and Syllabus Point 2 of State v. Slider, 156 W.Va. 653, 196 S.E.2d 85 (1973), "The sentence for the crime of armed robbery must be for a definite term of not less than ten years and the imp......
-
State v. Milam
...a single instruction is incomplete or lacks a particular element will not constitute grounds for disturbing the verdict. State v. Slider, W.Va. 196 S.E.2d 85 (1973); State v. Harlow, 137 W.Va. 251, 71 S.E.2d 330 State's Instruction No. 7 contained language which advised the jury that a ment......
-
State ex rel. Faircloth v. Catlett
...in this dissenting opinion and joins therein. 1 State ex rel. Wright v. Boles, 150 W.Va. 381, 146 S.E.2d 524 (1966); State v. Slider, 156 W.Va. 653, 196 S.E.2d 85 (1973), Syllabus Point 2; State v. Chaffin, 156 W.Va. 264, 192 S.E.2d 728 (1972), Syllabus Point 5.2 See State ex rel. Hutzler v......