Court Opinion

ID: 9767306
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 05:16:18.484607+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:30:30.332510
License: Public Domain

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING.
GRAVES, Presiding Judge.
Appellant again complains in his motion for rehearing herein that the testimony shows an assault with intent to rob rather than theft from the person.
It is true that the complaining witness testified as set forth in the original opinion. It is also true that other witnesses cor*77roborated this testimony. It is also true that still further witnesses did not in their entirety corroborate this testimony, but there was sufficient testimony, as well as its corroboration, to allow the jury to say that this property was taken from the injured party so quickly that he had no time to resist.
Appellant still re-urges that the exception to the court’s charge should have called the court’s attention to this claimed defense. We are of the opinion that no such defense existed. All the testimony relative to the money shows that it was taken from the state’s witness before he had time to resist; that thereafter the appellant, with the appropriated funds, ran out the door and was not apprehended until at a future time.
We see nothing in the motion that would justify us in granting the same. It is therefore overruled.