State v. Clingerman

Fatzer, C. J.:

dissenting. I must respectfully dissent. The court’s opinion acknowledges that intent is one of the essential ingredients of the crime of first degree robbery. K. S. A. 60-455 expressly recognizes that intent is one of the material factors of proof specified, which makes conviction of a prior similar offense relevant to the proof of the guilt of the defendant for the crime with which he is charged. The statute (60-455) makes the evidence material and relevant to the issues on trial — and it is not rendered inadmissible because it may show the defendant is guilty of another crime, or has been previously convicted. In my opinion, the defendant’s prior conviction in Missouri of assault with intent to rob is relevant to the charge on trial by virtue of the statute, and the district court did not eiT in admitting such evidence. While the evidence was offered for all the purposes of 60-455, intent to commit the offense charged is one of those purposes specified, and as indicated, is made relevant to proof of the offense charged. I would affirm the conviction on this point, although I am in accord with the court’s view that the district court failed to instruct on all the elements of the crime.