Court Opinion

ID: 9445913
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-03 21:41:02.927256+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:30:27.039799
License: Public Domain

BRATTON, Chief Judge
(dissenting).
It is my view that the decisive question upon which this case should turn is whether the act of entering the insured bank with the intent of committing larceny therein was merged into the com*828pleted act of stealing money belonging to the bank, not the effect which application of the doctrine of merger has upon the penalty. In Prince v. United States, 352 U.S. 322, 77 S.Ct. 403, 1 L.Ed.2d 370, it was expressly held that the gravamen of the offense of entering the bank was the intent to steal, and that such mental element was merged into the completed crime of robbery. If appropriate application of the doctrine of merger leads to the undesired result of less punishment than might otherwise be imposed, it is a matter to be corrected by Congress. I would reverse.