People v. Borra

California Court of Appeal May 14, 1932 No. Docket No. 1204.Published

Before: Thompson

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a robbery conviction is supported by evidence of fear when a victim complies with the demands of an armed perpetrator, even if the victim testifies they were not afraid, as fear may be presumed where there is just cause for it.

Issues

Whether the evidence was sufficient to establish the element of fear required for a robbery conviction under Penal Code section 211.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“It is not necessary that there be proof of actual fear, as fear may be presumed where there is just cause for it.”

“Prompt compliance with the commands of an armed person, who by words or demonstration threatens bodily harm for failure to do so, furnishes some evidence of fear.”

“The evidence is sufficient in this case to show that the robbery was accomplished by means of fear.”

THOMPSON (R. L.), J.

The defendant was convicted of robbery of the second degree and has appealed from the

[483]

judgment which was entered in accordance therewith. The robbery is alleged to have been accomplished by means of force and fear.

The appellant asserts the judgment is not supported by the evidence for the reason that the record discloses an absence of proof of either force or fear in the perpetration of the crime. - The contention is without merit. There is ample evidence the robbery was accomplished by means which caused fear on the part of the owner of the property.

Mr. Ilcar owns and operates a grocery business on 12th Street in Sacramento. About 11 o’clock in the forenoon of August 20, 1931, the defendant entered his store. The right hand of the defendant was thrust into his coat pocket in such a manner as to indicate that he held a concealed revolver. The defendant was promptly recognized by Mr. Ilcar as the same individual who had held him up and robbed him at the same store a few days previously. The merchant testified: “I started to go out and pull the awning down, and this Joe Borra walked right in the store and pointed at me like that (indicating), and stuck me in the side^—ribs, and told me to get back, back of the counter, which I did.” The robber then demanded that the cash register be opened. He took the entire contents, consisting of only seven dollars. He then hastened away. On cross-examination the witness testified: “Well, as I explained ... he walked up to me and stuck the gun on me and made me walk back. . . . Q. You say you had seen him before? A. Yes, sir. Q. And you say that he had held you up before? A. Yes sir. Q. And you reported that hold-up to the police, didn’t you? A. Yes sir. . . . Q. And you are sure that that is the same man that held you up in August, are you? A. Yes sir, absolutely.” Following a colloquy concerning the first robbery, Ikar testified regarding his fear of bodily harm, as follows: “Q. Were you frightened ? A. I was frightened, yes. Q. Were you frightened the second time? A. No, I wasn’t frightened the second time. Q. Why did you give up your money? A. . . . Why, he stuck the gun on me and told me to open the cash register. How could I— ... Q. You testified he had his hand like this? (Indicating) A. Yes, how do I know,— Q. Yes. And you were frightened then, too, were you? A. No, I

People v. Borra

AI Brief

THOMPSON (R. L.), J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief