People v. Vice
Cases that cite this one
23 later published cases cite this decision.
- People v. Tufunga (Cal. 1999)
- People v. Butler (Cal. 1967)
- People v. Dozier (Cal. Ct. App. 1939)
- People v. Brown (Cal. 1988)
- United States v. Mechanik (Supreme Court of the United States 1986)
- People v. Ross (Cal. 1967)
- People v. Rosen (Cal. 1938)
- Boles v. State (Ark. 1893)
- Riggens v. State (Ala. Ct. App. 1968)
- People v. Lain (Cal. Ct. App. 1943)
- James v. State of Arizona (Ariz. 1938)
- State v. Hackle (W. Va. 1931)
- Jones v. State (Miss. 1929)
- State v. Price (Idaho 1923)
- Barton v. State (Tex. Crim. App. 1921)
- People v. Stein (New York Court of General Session of the Peace 1916)
- Jones v. State (Miss. 1909)
- State v. Ham (S.D. 1908)
- McGinnis v. State (Wyo. 1907)
- Glenn v. State (Tex. Crim. App. 1906)
- State v. Carroll (Mo. 1901)
- People v. Ammerman (Cal. 1897)
- People v. Hughes (Cal. 1871)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
Cope, J. concurring.
t The indictment in this case is for the offense of robbery, but in the statement of facts constituting the offense there is a fatal defect. The statement contains no allegation as to the ownership of the property of which the party named was robbed, or that it did not belong to the defendant. It is not necessary that the property should belong to the party from whose possession it was forcibly taken. It is requisite, however, that it should belong to some other person than the defendant. The owner of property is not guilty of robbery in taking it from the person of the possessor, though he may be guilty of another public offense.
Judgment reversed and cause remanded.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.