Legal Opinion · Dissent

Jupiter v. State

Court of Appeals of Maryland

Decided December 11, 1992No. 101, September Term, 1991Published

1DissentEldridge, Judge

I cannot agree with the majority’s holding that a larcenous intent, which is a requisite for conviction of common *648law robbery, is not negated by the fact of full payment for goods held out for sale.

It is firmly established that larceny is an essential element of the common law crime of robbery. Snowden v. State, 321 Md. 612, 583 A.2d 1056 (1991); State v. Gover, 267 Md. 602, 298 A.2d 378 (1973); Hadder v. State, 238 Md. 341, 209 A.2d 70 (1965). Moreover, this Court has not eliminated the intent requirement of common law larceny. In Stebbing v. State, 299 Md. 331, 473 A.2d 903, cert. denied,…

2Cases cited22 opinions

  1. Williams v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1981
  2. Lewis v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1979
  3. Stebbing v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1984
  4. Snowden v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1991
  5. Simms v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1980

17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API