Robbery

The felonious taking of property from the person of another, accomplished by means of force or fear. The taking must be felonious, criminal; any taking by lawful right, as by a sheriff in the execution of process, is excluded. It must be from the person; stealing from a house in the owner's absence is not robbery, in the technical sense, though the thief may use violence in breaking into the house, or in tearing away the things stolen. And it must be accomplished by use of force or fear; either will do, but one is essential. Even snatching a thing from the owner's hand has been held not robbery; and, on account of the mildness of the law in this respect, larceny from the person is, by statute in New York, made subject of increased punishment. Robbery is the felonious taking of goods from the person of another, or in his presence, by violence, or by putting him in fear, and against his will.

United States V. Jones, 3 Wash. 209; Seymour v. State, 15 Ind. 288; Mc Daniel v. State, 16 Miss. 401; State v. Sowls, Phill. L. 151; Trial of the Officers and Crew of the Savannah, 370.

A taking from the person is an essential element in robbery. Stegar v. State, 39 Ga. 683. presence of the person robbed.

Crews v. State, 3 Coldw. 3-50.

A charge of robbery may be established by proof that the property was obtained through intimidation from threats, whether of immediate or future violence.

State v. Howerton, 58 Mo. 581.

Inasmuch as in the Missouri statute defining robbery in the first degree the words " by violence to his person, or by putting him in fear," &c., are disjunctive, fear is not an essential ingredient where force is used. Hence where one snatched a watch, tearing the chain from the owner's buttonhole, and struck him in order to escape, tbia was held robbery.

State v. Brodcrick, 59 Mo. 318.

Merely snatching a pocket-book from the owner's hand is not robbery, but simple larceny, if there is neither violence nor putting in fear.

Bonsall v. State, 35 Ind. 460.

The property must be taken by violence to the person; and this requires more than mere assault and battery. The violence must be sufficient to force the person to part with his property, not only against his will, but in spite of his resistance. The gist of the crime of robbery is force or terror. (2 East P. C. 707.) If there is nothing to inspire fear, there must be superior force, and the property must be relinquished upon compulsion.

People v. Hall, 6 Park. Cr. 642.

To define the term robbery, as employed in the act of congress, punishing robbery on the high seas, resort must be had to the common law. Wherever a statute of the United States uses a technical term, which is known, and its meaning clearly ascertained by the common law or civil law, from one or other of which it is obviously borrowed, it is proper to refer for its meaning to the source from which it is taken.

United States v. Jones, 3 Wash. 209.