People v. Reade

California Court of Appeal Nov 30, 1961 No. Crim. 7629Published

Before: Lillie

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. A conviction for robbery is sustained where the defendant uses force to secure property or facilitate an escape, even if the physical force occurs nearly simultaneously with the snatching of the property.

Issues

Whether the evidence was sufficient to support a robbery conviction rather than grand larceny when the victim was not in fear and the force occurred during the taking and escape.
Whether the use of force to facilitate an escape and prevent pursuit constitutes a robbery under Penal Code section 211.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“where there is evidence of force or fear in the taking of an object “snatched” from the person of the victim a conviction of robbery will be sustained”

“the force used was not part of the crime of robbery is to make an unwarranted distinction for the benefit of thieves, for their escape with the loot by means of force is as important in the commission of the crime”

“Robbery is not completed at the moment the stolen property is in the robber’s possession since the crime includes the element of asportation.”

LILLIE, J.

Defendant was charged with robbery of checks and papers in violation of section 211, Penal Code; he waived his right to a trial by jury; the court found him guilty of robbery, second degree; and he appeals from the judgment of conviction.

Defendant neither testified on his own behalf nor offered a defense. The following facts are uncontradicted. On July 8, 1960, around 2:30 p. m. Mary T. Homma, a cashier for the Pacific Finance Company, left her office to make the company’s daily bank deposit; in her left hand she carried an envelope containing 25 checks, 25 money orders and 8, $5.00 bills. She walked down the corridor and as she turned toward the stairway to descend to the first floor, defendant who had been standing there snatched the envelope from her hand, shoved her to the floor and ran down the stairs out of the building. She “screamed” and “hollered out” to the man who operated the candy store in the lobby, “Help, help, Max, catch the fellow in the green that is running out of the building. ’ ’

Appellant’s sole contention is that the evidence shows neither force nor fear used at the time the envelope was taken from the victim and at most it supports a finding of grand larceny.

Section 211, Penal Code, defines robbery as the felonious taking of personal property from the person of another and against his will, “accomplished by means of force or fear.” Thus, although the taking may be accomplished by the use of either force or fear

(People

Kuranoff,

100 Cal.App. 2d 673 [224 P.2d 402]), proof of one or the other must be made in order to sustain a conviction of robbery.

(People

Russell,

118 Cal.App.2d 136 [257 P.2d 39].)

The record before us supports no conclusion that Miss Homma was in fear, for she testified that she was only startled when the envelope was snatched from her hand and that defendant did not put her in fear. Appellant argues that neither does the evidence support a finding of the force contemplated in section 211, inasmuch as the shove occurred

after

the envelope was taken from Miss Homma and its sole purpose was to “by-pass” her in the narrow stairway. He relies mainly on

People v. Reade

AI Brief

LILLIE, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief