State v. Graves
Supreme Court of Missouri
(1) Instruction 4 is clearly misleading. Under this instruction the jury could clearly infer, in fact it is the only inference justifiable, that a struggle for possession of the-money after the asportation by defendant was complete, is sufficient evidence of violence to constitute robbery. This is not the law. State v. Sommers, 12 Mo. App. 374; State v. Willis, 16 Mo. App. 553; State v. Clark, 12 Mo. App. 593; State v. Cunningham, 13 Mo.
Read the full summary
(1) Instruction 4 is clearly misleading. Under this instruction the jury could clearly infer, in fact it is the only inference justifiable, that a struggle for possession of the-money after the asportation by defendant was complete, is sufficient evidence of violence to constitute robbery. This is not the law. State v. Sommers, 12 Mo. App. 374; State v. Willis, 16 Mo. App. 553; State v. Clark, 12 Mo. App. 593; State v. Cunningham, 13 Mo. App. 576. (2) Instruction 1 does not properly declare the law. The intent with which defendant took the money is material and such intent is not submitted to…
1Opinion of the CourtPox, J.
The defendant is charged with the crime of robbery. The information was filed in the criminal-court of Greene county at the July term, 1903, by the prosecuting attorney of said county. On the twenty-eighth day of July, the defendant was arraigned and entered a plea of not guilty. He was afterwards tried, found guilty by the jury, and his punishment assessed at sis years ’ imprisonment in the penitentiary. From judgment upon this verdict, he appeals.
The testimony for the State substantially shows that the prosecuting witness, William Rogers, had for *715some years been a resident of the city of…
2Cited by5 opinions
- State v. Lasson.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1922
- State v. BurnsSupreme Court of Missouri · 1955
- State v. BatemanSupreme Court of Missouri · 1906
- State v. Evans and BlankenbakerSupreme Court of Missouri · 1929
- Walling v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1909