holding that “intent to rob can be established when the government has presented facts that suffice as circumstantial evidence to warrant an inference of the intent of the robbery”
How later courts described this case
- holding that “intent to rob can be established when the government has presented facts that suffice as circumstantial evidence to warrant an inference of the intent of the robbery”
- describing Scutchings in parenthetical as a case where "indictment charged obstruction of justice as to one witness; proof at trial concerned a different witness.”
- where appellant charged with assault with intent to rob two victims, Fox and Davis, but evidence showed intent to rob a third person, Foster, the conviction represented an impermissible constructive amendment of the indictment
- "It is well established that the jury may infer the intent to rob from the 'totality of the evidence.’ ”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
KERN, Senior Judge,
concurring:
I concur in the result the majority reaches in its opinion.