How have the courts interpreted intent in a robbery case?

There is no merit in defendants' contention that the evidence fails to disclose the intent with which defendants acted. Section 21 of the Penal Code reads in part thus: 'The intent or intention [with which a crime is committed] is manifested by the circumstances connected with the offense, and the sound mind and discretion of the accused. * * *' The element of intent is rarely susceptible of direct proof and must usually be inferred from all the facts and circumstances disclosed by the evidence. Where the evidence is sufficient to justify a reasonable inference that such intent existed, as in the present case, the verdict may not be disturbed. (People v. Smith, 84 Cal.App.2d 509, 512, 190 P.2d 941.)

Second: Was the jury properly and adequately instructed on the question of intent?

Page 999

Yes. The trial court instructed the jury that criminal intent is the intention to do the act which constitutes a violation of the law, and does not necessarily involve an intent to violate the law, and hence that ignorance of the illegal nature [134 Cal.App.2d 646] of the act is not a bar to conviction. (See People v. Durrant, 116 Cal. 179, 208, 48 P. 75.)

In addition, the trial court read to the jury as part of its instructions section 211 of the Penal Code, defining the crime of robbery. It is settled that reading to the jury the statutory definition of a crime is sufficient. (People v. White, 5 Cal.App. 329, 335, 90 P. 471.)