Root v. State

Supreme Court of Alabama

Root v. State

25 So. 2d 182, 247 Ala. 514

CourtSupreme Court of Alabama

DecidedMarch 7, 1946

Docket4 Div. 400.

StatusPublished

Cited by21 cases

This text of 25 So. 2d 182 (Root v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Alabama primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Root v. State, 25 So. 2d 182, 247 Ala. 514 (Ala. 1946).

Pincite

Opinion

STAKELY, Justice.

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.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

STAKELY, Justice.

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

25 So. 2d 182, 247 Ala. 514, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/root-v-state-ala-1946.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack