120 So. 199 | Miss. | 1929
Only one instruction was given for the state, which follows: "The court instructs the jury for the state that if they believe, beyond a reasonable doubt from the evidence in this case that this defendant, did then and there, *901 in company with another wilfully, unlawfully, forcibly, violently, and feloniously, in the presence of the witness, Mrs. A. Dominick and against her will forcibly take from her the sum of money testified to then he is guilty as charged and the jury should so find. (Given)"
Appellant contends that this instruction was erroneous, because it failed to inform the jury that, before they could convict appellant, it was necessary that the evidence show beyond a reasonable doubt that the robbery was committed by appellant with the intent to steal from Mrs. Dominick the one hundred and fifty-five dollars. No instruction was given appellant that the intent to commit the larceny of the money was a necessary and essential element of the crime of robbery.
The attorney-general concedes that, unless Jones v. State,
Appellant assigns and argues that other errors were committed during the progress of his trial. We do not pass on those, because, if there were errors, they were such as probably will not occur on another trial.
Reversed and remanded.
*1