State v. Sommers
| Decision Date | 13 June 1882 |
| Citation | 12 Mo.App. 374 |
| Parties | STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent, v. GEORGE SOMMERS, Appellant. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
1. An attempt to commit robbery involves an attempt to commit the larceny involved in the robbery.
2. The snatching of property from the person of another without violence and without putting the owner in fear is larceny and not robbery.
APPEAL from the St. Louis Criminal Court, LAUGHLIN, J.
Affirmed.
MARTIN & FAUNTLEROY, for the appellant.
J. R. HARRIS, for the respondent.
Defendant was indicted for stealing $450. The testimony showed that he attempted to snatch from the hands of a girl who was carrying the same through an unfrequented street, a bag containing that amount in silver and bank-notes. The court directed the jury to acquit of grand larceny; but if they believed from the evidence that defendant did, at the date named and at the place named, feloniously attempt to steal, take, and carry away from the daughter of Frederick Kurst the money of said Kurst in a sum in excess of $30, and did so with intent to convert the same to his own use and to deprive the true owner of it without his consent, they should find defendant guilty of the crime of an attempt to commit the crime of grand larceny.
Counsel for appellant contends that there was no evidence to warrant this instruction, because, he says, the evidence shows an attempt to commit robbery, and does not show an attempt to commit larcency. If this were so we think there is nothing in it; because robbery and larceny are, in their nature, felonious offences of the same general kind. Robbery is larceny with something added. One indicted of robbery might, if the evidence justified it, have been acquitted of the robbery and convicted of the larceny, on this ground. Rex v. Gnosil, 11 Eng. C. L. 400. The charge of robbery involves the charge of larceny; and if an act is done with an intent to commit robbery, it must be done with an intent to commit the larceny involved in the robbery. So, an indictment for burglary by feloniously breaking and entering into the dwelling-house of the prosecutor with intent to steal his goods, is supported by proof that the intent of the prisoner was to rob the prosecutor. The State v. Cody, 1 Wins. 197; 1 Bishop's Cr. Proc., sect. 488 e.
We are of opinion, moreover, that there was evidence from which the jury might fairly find an attempt to steal as distinguished from an attempt to rob. To...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The State v. Holmes
...L. R. A. 1915C, 121; Schroeder v. People, 196 Ill. 211; 24 Am. & Eng. Ency. Law (2 Ed.) 999; 1 McClain's Criminal Law, sec. 469; State v. Sommers, 12 Mo.App. 374; Kelley's Criminal Law, 629; Thomas v. State, Ala. 34; People v. Stevens, 141 Cal. 488, 75 P. 62; 34 Cyc. 1799; Spencer v. State,......
-
State v. Dulaney
...Mo., 299 S.W.2d 468. By the same token the record here does not support the inference of a mere sudden snatching of the gun (State v. Sommers, 12 Mo.App. 374) or even a strong-arm robbery (State v. Spivey, Mo., 204 S.W. 259) or an instance of only such force as would be exerted in filching ......
-
The State v. Cantrell
...the use of force or violence or putting him in fear of injury to his person. Such an act is merely larceny and not robbery. [State v. Sommers, 12 Mo.App. 374, 375; State Parker, 262 Mo. 169, 178-180, 170 S.W. 1121; State v. Spivey, 204 S.W. 259.] It is not robbery to obtain property from an......
-
Agee v. Empemployers' Liability Assur. Corporation
...Cr. App.) 26 S. W. 1081; Stockton v. Commonwealth, 125 Ky. 268, 101 S. W. 298; People v. Ryan, 239 Ill. 410, 88 N. E.' 170; State v. Sommers, 12 Mo. App. 374. Under these authorities, we think the testimony offered in plaintiff's behalf (which for the purpose of the demurrers must be accept......