Title 21, Crimes and Punishments
Part III. Crimes Against the Person Chapter 28. Robbery
§ 778 - § 791
§ 778. Threats to Publishing a Libel—Proof.
Chapter 28.
Robbery
[Misdemeanor: 0-1 yr. county jail and/or $0-1,000.00, see 21 O.S. §773]
Any person who threatens to publish a libel concerning any
other person, or concerning any relative, wife or child or dead
relative of such person, or member of his family, shall be liable
civilly and criminally to have the same intent as though the publication had been made. But if the threat be not in writing, the
threat and character of the libelous matter must be proven by at
least two witnesses, or by one witness and corroborating circumstances.
Added by R.L. 1910, § 2387.
§ 779. Imputation of Unchastity as Slander—Penalty.
[Misdemeanor: 30-90 days county jail and/or $25.00-500.00, see below]
If any person shall orally or otherwise, falsely and maliciously
or falsely and wantonly impute to any female, married or unmarried, a want of chastity, he shall be deemed guilty of slander, and
upon conviction shall be fined not less than Twenty-five Dollars
($25.00) nor more than Five Hundred Dollars ($500.00), or by
imprisonment in the county jail not less than thirty (30) days nor
more than ninety (90) days, or by both such fine and imprisonment.
Added by R.L. 1910, § 2387.
§ 780. Imputation of Unchastity—Proof—Defense.
In any prosecution under the preceding section it shall not be
necessary for the state to show that such imputation was false,
but the defendant may, in justification, show the truth of the
imputation, and the general reputation for chastity of the female
alleged.
Added by R.L. 1910, § 2389.
§ 781. False Rumors of a Slanderous Nature—Penalty.
[Misdemeanor: 30-120 days county jail and/or $100.00-500.00, see below]
Any person, who shall willfully, knowingly, or maliciously
repeat or communicate to any person, or persons, a false rumor
or report of a slanderous or harmful nature, or which may be
detrimental to the character or standing of such other person, or
persons, whether such person is a private citizen, or officer, or
candidate for office, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor
and upon conviction shall be fined not less than One Hundred
Dollars ($100.00) nor more than Five Hundred Dollars
($500.00), or imprisoned not less than thirty (30) days nor more
than one hundred and twenty (120) days in the county jail, or
both so fined and imprisoned for each offense.
Added by Laws 1929, ch. 21, p. 18, § 1.
Pegg v. State, 659 P.2d 370, 372 (Okla.Crim.App. 1983). “The False
Rumors statute survives the vagueness test requiring an ordinary person of common intelligence to be able to ascertain the meaning of the
statute. When read in a reasonable fashion and allowing the words
their ordinary meaning, we find that the ordinary person is apprised
of the type of conduct that is proscribed; the intentional disparagement of the reputation or character of another by a false communication.
“When viewed in light of these principles, the appellant’s overbreadth attack on § 781 must fail. Section 781 is not only amenable
to a limiting construction; but, such a construction is far more logical
than the appellant’s interpretation. Our reading of the statute indicates that the conduct proscribed is willfully, knowingly, or maliciously communicating a false rumor or false report of a defamatory
nature. This implies a knowledge of the falsity of the rumor or report
and is limited to the communication of facts.” Id. at 373.
OKLAHOMA CRIMINAL LAW
Cross-references:
OUJI-CR 2d 4-140 (Robbery—Introduction).
§ 791. Definition of Robbery.
[(First degree)
Felony: 10 yrs. + State Penitentiary, see 21 O.S. § 798;
(Second degree)
Felony: 0-10 yrs. State Penitentiary, see 21 O.S. § 799;
see also 21 O.S. §§ 800 and 801 and
Habitual offender provisions, see 21 O.S. § 51.1]
Robbery is a wrongful taking of personal property in the possession of another, from his person or immediate presence, and
against his will, accomplished by means of force or fear.
Added by R.L. 1910, § 2364.
Cross-references:
21 O.S. § 51.1 (Punishments for Second and Subsequent Convictions for Offenses Punishable by Imprisonment in State Penitentiary);
57 O.S. § 510.9 (Not eligible for electronic monitoring program);
57 O.S. § 571 (Nonviolent offense, defined, exceptions);
OUJI-CR 2d 4-140 (Robbery—Introduction);
OUJI-CR 2d 4-141 (Robbery—First Degree—Elements);
OUJI-CR 2d 4-142 (Robbery—Second Degree—Elements);
OUJI-CR 2d 4-143 (Robbery—Conjoint—Elements);
OUJI-CR 2d 4-144 (Robbery—With a Dangerous Weapon—Elements);
OUJI-CR 2d 4-145 (Robbery—Attempted, With a Dangerous Weapon—
Elements).
McElmurry v. State, 60 P.3d 4,22 (Okla. Crim. App. 2002). “Dr.
Distefano also testified that there were defensive wounds on Robert
Pendley’s hands. Pain, and the fear of pain, are relevant to explain
such wounds. The fear of pain was also relevant to prove a material element of the robbery count. Robbery is defined as ‘a wrongful taking of personal property in the possession of another, from
his person or immediate presence, and against his will, accomplished by means of force or fear.’ 21 O.S.1991, § 791.”
Rounds v. State, 679 P.2d 283, 287 (Okla.Crim.App. 1984). “Moreover, the evidence at trial confirmed the allegation that it was the
shotgun which caused the victim to part with his property. To constitute robbery, the fear or force must be employed to obtain or retain
possession of the property, or to prevent or overcome resistance to
the taking. If employed merely as a means of escape, it does not constitute robbery. See, 21 O.S.1981, § 792.
“Appellant’s final proposition of error is that the judge erred in
failing to instruct the jury that an essential element of the crime of
robbery is ‘asportation’, or carrying away. This assertion is without
merit. The instructions in this case included the word ‘taking’, which
adequately apprises the jury on this element of robbery. See Langdell
v. State, 657 P.2d 162 (Okl.Cr.1982).” Id. at 288.
Smith v. State, 378 P.2d 790, 792 (Okla.Crim.App. 1963). “The second variance alleged is that the Information charges Robbery with
Firearms while the proof showed the ‘gun’ which the prosecuting
witness saw in the hands of the defendant was in reality a toy pistol,
incapable of firing a bullet. Defense counsel cited no cases in which
this Court has ever held necessary the fact that a particular ‘gun’ involved in a robbery would actually shoot. However, this Court held
to the contrary in the case of Cannon v. State, 71 Okl.Cr. 42,107 P.2d
809:
‘That it had the appearance of a gun, and he believed it was one,
and for fear of his life, he did as he was told, and under these
circumstances he was robbed of his money. Under these facts
there can be no question but that the defendant was guilty of
robbery . . . .
‘To constitute robbery the taking is accomplished either by
force or by putting in fear. The violence of intimidation in robbery must precede or be contemporaneous with the taking of the
529
Title 21
§ 791