Tyson v. U.S.
| Decision Date | 10 April 1912 |
| Citation | 122 P. 733,7 Okla.Crim. 433,1912 OK CR 198 |
| Parties | TYSON v. UNITED STATES. |
| Court | United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma |
Syllabus by the Court.
In a prosecution for assault with intent to rob, the evidence is held sufficient to support the verdict and that no reversible error was committed on the trial.
An indictment for assault with intent to rob need not state what the defendant intended to take, nor that he intended to deprive the owner thereof, nor is it necessary to allege ownership in the party assaulted; mere possession in him being sufficient.
The instructions of the court, taken as a whole, fairly stated the rules and principles of law applicable to the issues involved.
(Additional Syllabus by Editorial Staff.)
In the statute relating to assault with intent to rob, and an indictment following its language, the term "rob," is used in its common-law sense.
Appeal from District Court, Garvin County; Robinson McMillan, Judge.
Sonny Tyson was convicted of assault with intent to rob, and appeals. Affirmed.
Carr & Field, of Pauls Valley, for plaintiff in error.
Chas West, Atty. Gen., and Smith C. Matson, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the United States.
The plaintiff in error was convicted in the district court of Garvin county of the crime of assult with intent to rob, and was sentenced to serve a term of three years in the state penitentiary. The judgment was entered May 13, 1909.
The record shows that the conviction was had on an indictment returned by a grand jury in the United States court in the Indian Territory for the Southern district of said territory at the October term, 1906, and that the case was pending in the said court at the time of the admission of Oklahoma as a state. That the case was assigned for trial at the March 1909, term of the district court of Garvin county, and the defendant defaulted and was subsequently re-arrested. The record further shows that upon arraignment defendant entered a plea of not guilty, that subsequently, without permission to withdraw his plea, a general demurrer to the indictment was filed, which demurrer was overruled.
The Supreme Court of Arkansas directly passed upon the sufficiency of an indictment in nearly the identical language employed herein, holding the indictment good. Traver v State, 72 Ark. 524, 81 S.W. 615. See, also, McClain, Criminal Law, pars. 228 and 281.
The prosecution here was under the Arkansas statute. The indictment follows the language of the statute. The term "rob" is used therein in its common-law sense and has a well-defined meaning. 2 Russell on Cr. par. 76. The indictment is sufficient and the demurrer thereto was properly overruled.
The second assignment is that: "The court erred in refusing to sustain the demurrer of the defendant to the evidence introduced in support of said...
To continue reading
Request your trial