Court Opinion

ID: 9738298
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 19:49:30.742765+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:05.321045
License: Public Domain

*20Concurring Opinion
White, J.
If the indictment alleged merely the words of the robbery statute one might well question whether it includes a charge of theft. Insofar as here pertinent, the statute declares that “[w]hoever takes from the person of another any article of value by violence or putting in fear, is guilty of robbery. . . ,”1 For some unexplained reason (heretofore apparently unnoticed by courts and textbook writers) the adverbs “forcibly and feloniously,” which had previously characterized the verb “takes,” were deleted from the robbery statute when it was re-enacted in 1941.2 However, it appears that the forms of indictment, affidavit, and jury instruction in common use have continued to define robbery in the traditional language.
So we find that the indictment at bar alleges that defendants “did . . . feloniously, forcibly by violence and putting . . . in fear, . . . [etc.].” (Our emphasis.) As was said of a jury instruction in Brown v. State (1959), 241 Ind. 14, 19, 158 N.E.2d 290, 292, “ ‘it is well settled that the word “felonious,” when used in defining the crime of robbery or larceny, implies an intent to steal.’ ”3
In Robinson v. State (1888), 113 Ind. 510, 512, 16 N.E. 184, 185, it was held:
“The taking and carrying away are felonious or not, depending on whether the taker intended at the time permanently to deprive the owner of his property without his consent, or whether he merely intended temporarily to use it wrongfully, mischievously or wantonly, it may be, and *21then return or abandon it to the owner without substantial injury. Taking, though wrongful, for a mere temporary purpose, is not larceny.”
As against the objection that the indictment fails to charge the crime of theft because it fails expressly to allege that the taking was with intent to deprive the owner of the use and benefit of the property, the indictment is good. Miller v. State (1968), 250 Ind. 338, 346, 236 N.E.2d 173, 176, is readily distinguishable in that its affidavit attempted to charge theft by receipt of stolen property in the words of the Offenses Against Property Act4 and failed expressly to allege the requisite intent. Here the charge was not alleged in the words of the O.A.P. Act, but in the words of the robbery act, plus “feloni-ously,” which clearly alleged a taking from the person with intent to deprive the owner of the use and benefit of his property. Miller involved no question of whether the stealing which is included in robbery can be alleged in the traditional language of larceny as well as in the newer language of theft. Since the elements of theft from the person5 are identical to larceny,6 with the added element of “from the person,”7 they are all included in this traditionally alleged charge of robbery.

. Ind. Ann. Stat. § 10-4101, IC 1971, 35-13-4-6, Ind. Acts 1941, Ch. 148, § 6.

. Ind. Acts 1941, Ch. 148, § 13, repealed Acts 1905, Ch. 169, § 357, as last amended by Acts 1921, Ch. 59, § 1.

. Quoting State v. Fordham. (1904), 13 N. D. 494, 500, 101 N. W. 888, 889. The instruction had told the jury that if it believed, etc., “that the defendant . . . did forcibly and feloniously take from the person of Tylene Morris any . . . money ... by violence or putting her in fear, then you would be warranted in finding the defendant guilty of robbery. . . .” The objection was that it “omits . . . elements of the crime.”

. Ind. Ann. Stat. § 10-3028 et seq. (Burns 1972 Supp.), IC 1971, 35-17-5-1, Ind. Acts 1963, Ch. 10, as amended.

. The elements of “Theft” are set forth in Ind. Ann. Stat. § 10-3030 (Burns 1972 Supp.), IC 1971, 35-17-5-3, Ind. Acts 1963, Ch. 10, § 3.

. See Ind. Ann. Stat. §§ 10-3001, 10-3002 (Burns 1956 Repl.), Ind. Acts 1941, Ch. 148, § 9, and Ind. Acts 1929, Ch. 156, § 2, both repealed by O.A.P.A.

. The penalties for the various types of theft and other crimes defined in O.A.P.A. are specified in Ind. Ann. Stat. § 10-3039 (Burns 1972 Supp.), IC 1971, 35-17-5-12, Ind. Acts 1963, Ch. 10, § 12, as last amended by 1971 P. L. 458 § 2. Paragraph (5) provides (regardless of the value of the stolen property) a fine up to $5,000.00 and/or imprisonment of 1-10 years and disfranchisement if “(e) the theft was from the person”.