{
  "id": 1505639,
  "name": "Traver v. State",
  "name_abbreviation": "Traver v. State",
  "decision_date": "1904-06-11",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "524",
  "last_page": "525",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "72 Ark. 524"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "70 Ark. 163",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1509434
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/70/0163-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "58 Ark. 35",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1329171
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/58/0035-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "28 Tex. App. 576",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "White & W.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "50 Ark. 501",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        8723993
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/50/0501-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "58 Ark. 35",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1329171
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/58/0035-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 219,
    "char_count": 3204,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.629,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.6413385088212585e-07,
      "percentile": 0.8231613117212625
    },
    "sha256": "8ff25d87586eddb0bc696364d94c611fb5bb14771d44658406f1483baaac46e5",
    "simhash": "1:e2440b7c92e9922a",
    "word_count": 539
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T14:55:00.960408+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Traver v. State."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Wood, J.\nAt the February term, 1904, of the Craighead circuit court, for the Jonesboro district, the grand jury returned an indictment against appellant for the crime of assault with intent to rob, charging that he \u201con the 1st day of December, 1903, in the county and district aforesaid, did unlawfully, feloniously, willfully and of his malice aforethought, assault J. H. Manning, with the felonious intent, then and there, him, the said J. H. Manning, to forcefully and violently rob, against the peace and dignity of the state of Arkansas.\u201d After being convicted on this indictment, appellant moved in arrest of judgment on the ground that the indictment did not state facts sufficient to constitute a public offense within the jurisdiction of the court; and the question is now here upon the sufficiency of the indictment to support the conviction, no demurrer having been interposed.\nThe indictment is good. The same particularity is not required in charging attempted acts as in the completed crime. 1 McClain, Criminal Law, \u00a7 \u00a7 228, 269. Robbery is larceny by force of intimidation, and it is sufficient to charge it in either form. Young v. State, 50 Ark. 501.\nIt is not necessary to specify what accused intended to take. McClain, Cr. Law, \u00a7 \u00a7 269, 281, and authorities cited. Nor to aver that the accused intended to deprive the owner of its value. Crumes v. State, 28 Tex. App. 576. Nor is it necessary to allege ownership in the party assaulted. Mere possession in him is sufficient. McClain, Cr. Law, \u00a7 281. In Boles v. State, 58 Ark. 35, the court held that it was necessary to allege the ownership of the property. But that was a charge of robbery.\nThe indictment follows the language of the statute. The term \u201crob\u201d is used therein in its common-law sense, and has a well-defined meaning. 2 Russell on Cr. Law, \u00a7 76.\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Wood, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "F. G. Taylor, for appellant.",
      "George W. Murphy, Attorney General, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "erratum. On page 525, eleventh line from top, tion\u201d read force or intimidation. for \u201cforce of intimida-",
    "head_matter": "Traver v. State.\nOpinion delivered June 11, 1904.\n1. Assault to rob \u2014 indictment..\u2014An indictment for assault with intent to rob, which alleges that defendant, on a certain day, did unlawfully, feloniously, willfully and of his malice aforethought assault M. with the felonious intent him \u201cto forcefully and violently rob, against, the peace and dignity of the state,\u201d etc., is sufficient; the same particularity not being required in charging attempted acts as in charging completed crimes. (Page 524.)\n2. Same \u2014 form of allegation. \u2014 Robbery being larceny by force or intimidation, it is sufficient to charge it in either form. (Page 525.)\n3. Same \u2014 particularity of allegations \u2014 ownership.\u2014A11 indictment for assault with intent to rob need not state what accused intended to take, nor that he intended to deprive the owner of its value; nor is it necessary > allege ownership in the party assaulted, mere possession in him being sufficient. (Page 525-)\nAppeal from Craighead Circuit Court.\nAeren N. Hughes, Judge.\nAffirmed.\nF. G. Taylor, for appellant.\nThe indictment was insufficient. 58 Ark. 35; Bish. New Cr. L- \u00a7 \u00a7 7^9, 773-\nGeorge W. Murphy, Attorney General, for appellee.\nThe indictment was sufficient. 70 Ark. 163; 1 McClain, Cr. L. \u00a7 \u00a7 228, 281."
  },
  "file_name": "0524-01",
  "first_page_order": 540,
  "last_page_order": 543
}