Martin v. State

It is conceded by counsel for the defendant that there are but two questions involved. We will discuss them.(a) Is the evidence sufficient to sustain the verdict of assaplt with intent to rob? We think it is. Counsel for the defendant bases his contention that it is not, on the ground that the evidence does not reveal that the defendant made any demand for money. As we construe the law as applicable to the indictment in the instant case, no demand is necessary. The defendant was indicted under the Code, § 26-1405. Assault with intent to rob under this section may be committed in three ways:…