People v. Vice
THE PEOPLE v. VICE
- Area
- criminal
- Panel
- Stephen J. Field (author)
Analysis
No analysis yet. When one exists it is a model's reading of this opinion — the rulings it reviewed, whether it agrees with the court, and the authorities it checked — shown beside the court's own disposition, never in place of it. How analyses are made.
Opinion — Field
Field, C. J. delivered the opinion of the Court Cope, J. concurring.
t The indictment in this case is for the offense of robbery, but in the statement of facts constituting the offense there is a fatal defect. The statement contains no allegation as to the ownership of the property of which the party named was robbed, or that it did not belong to the defendant. It is not necessary that the property should belong to the party from whose possession it was forcibly taken. It is requisite, however, that it should belong to some other person than the defendant. The owner of property is not guilty of robbery in taking it from the person of the possessor, though he may be guilty of another public offense.
Judgment reversed and cause remanded.
Cited by
- People v. Tufunga S072486 · 1999-11-15
- People v. Brown Crim. 22646 · 1988-08-25
- People v. Ross Crim. 10533 · 1967-07-20
- People v. Butler Crim. 9872 · 1967-01-09
- People v. Lain Crim. 1807 · 1943-02-13
- People v. Dozier Crim. 523 · 1939-10-03
- People v. Rosen Crim. 4125 · 1938-04-19
- People v. Ammerman Crim. No. 250 · 1897-09-04
- People v. Hughes No. 2,605 · 1871-07-01