Summary
holding that use of force merely to escape not robbery
Summary of this case from Dixon v. StateOpinion
4 Div. 400.
March 7, 1946.
Certiorari to Court of Appeals.
Petition of George Root and Buddy Gibson for certiorari to the Court of Appeals to review and revise the judgment and decision of that Court in the case of Root et al. v. State, 25 So.2d 180.
Writ denied.
J. N. Mullins, of Dothan, for petitioners.
Wm. N. McQueen, Atty. Gen., and John O. Harris, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
We concur in the reasoning and conclusion of the Court of Appeals, but think it well to add that in order to constitute robbery, it was essential "that the taking should, at the time of manucaption, have been with a larcenous intent." Kennedy v. State, 208 Ala. 66, 93 So. 822. In other words if the defendants had taken the car merely for use in making their escape, but not with intent to steal it, that is, to appropriate it permanently, then there would have been no robbery. But under the evidence, as found by the Court of Appeals, we think the question of intent was a question for the jury. Kennedy v. State, supra. See also Porter v. State, 30 Ala. App. 46, 1 So.2d 309; State v. Smith, Mo. Sup., 68 S.W.2d 696; People v. O'Neal et al., 2 Cal.App.2d 551, 38 P.2d 430; Etzler v. State, 143 Tex.Cr.R. 327, 158 S.W.2d 495; People v. Headlee, Cal.App., 108 P.2d 933.
Writ denied.
GARDNER, C. J., and FOSTER and LAWSON, JJ., concur.