People v. Johnson

The defendant was convicted of assault with intent to commit robbery and the appeal is from the judgment and the order denying his motion for a new trial.

The first point made is that the information states no offense against the defendant, or at least no offense of which the superior court has jurisdiction. The particular criticism is that there is no allegation of the intent with which the “assault” was made. The charging part of the information, as certified by the clerk, is as follows:

The omission of the word “intent” was probably an inadvertence in the preparation of the transcript as in the reporter’s transcript certified by the trial judge the word appears. But, be that as it may, it is quite apparent that if the intent with which the assault was made was not directly expressed it was clearly implied by the use of the terms which were employed. To charge that a defendant made an assault to steal, take, and carry away certain goods necessarily carries the implication that his purpose or intent in making the assault was to steal, etc. If it were stated that A went to Washington to see the President it would not be open to dispute that his purpose in going to the capital…