Robbery Forum

[swtlilsoni]

In my Themis outline, it states this for robbery:

When a pickpocket takes the victim’s property without the victim’s knowledge, the taking does not constitute robbery unless the victim notices the taking and resists.

The point they are trying to get at is that robbery is taking through a threat of force, so the person has to be threatened with the force and give up the items BECAUSE of the threat. Just knocking someone out and taking their stuff doesn't count because even though the force made it EASIER for you to take their stuff, the victim did not give their stuff BECAUSE of the threat.

This was further illustrated in a practice essay, where the suspect hit a guy, and after the guy fell and passed out, he took his stuff. The model answer states:

When a pickpocket takes the victim’s property without the victim’s knowledge, the taking does not constitute robbery unless the victim notices the taking and resists. Here, the prosecution will argue that Dave hit Ed over the head with a flashlight and [..] took property off of Ed’s person, satisfying the robbery elements. However, the defense will argue that the force, battery with the flashlight, came before the taking of the items and therefore there was no force associated with the taking.

Now, here is where the trouble comes in. On a multiple choice question, the question was this:

A runner was in the midst of his morning run when the defendant jumped out from behind a bush and tripped the runner, intending to steal the runner’s wallet. The runner was not carrying a wallet, however. Frustrated, the defendant tore off the runner’s hat. The runner tried to grab the hat back from the defendant, but the defendant pulled it away and ran off. The struggle caused the defendant to lose his balance, and he dropped the hat a few feet from the runner. The runner then picked up his hat and completed his run.

What is the most serious crime, listed in order of increasing seriousness, for which the defendant may be convicted?

The answer is Robbery. The reason given is: Robbery is larceny from the person or presence of the victim by force or intimidation. The force need not be great, but must be more than the amount necessary to effectuate taking and carrying away the property. The elements of larceny were met as soon as the defendant carried away the hat. Moreover, the force element was satisfied when the defendant tripped the runner and then struggled with the runner.

This seems totally contradictory to the essay question! I thought the whole idea was that the 'taking' has to be through the threat of force, whereas in this example, the force happened beforehand!

[Sue]

In my Themis outline, it states this for robbery:

When a pickpocket takes the victim’s property without the victim’s knowledge, the taking does not constitute robbery unless the victim notices the taking and resists.

The point they are trying to get at is that robbery is taking through a threat of force, so the person has to be threatened with the force and give up the items BECAUSE of the threat. Just knocking someone out and taking their stuff doesn't count because even though the force made it EASIER for you to take their stuff, the victim did not give their stuff BECAUSE of the threat.

This was further illustrated in a practice essay, where the suspect hit a guy, and after the guy fell and passed out, he took his stuff. The model answer states:

When a pickpocket takes the victim’s property without the victim’s knowledge, the taking does not constitute robbery unless the victim notices the taking and resists. Here, the prosecution will argue that Dave hit Ed over the head with a flashlight and [..] took property off of Ed’s person, satisfying the robbery elements. However, the defense will argue that the force, battery with the flashlight, came before the taking of the items and therefore there was no force associated with the taking.

Now, here is where the trouble comes in. On a multiple choice question, the question was this:

A runner was in the midst of his morning run when the defendant jumped out from behind a bush and tripped the runner, intending to steal the runner’s wallet. The runner was not carrying a wallet, however. Frustrated, the defendant tore off the runner’s hat. The runner tried to grab the hat back from the defendant, but the defendant pulled it away and ran off. The struggle caused the defendant to lose his balance, and he dropped the hat a few feet from the runner. The runner then picked up his hat and completed his run.

What is the most serious crime, listed in order of increasing seriousness, for which the defendant may be convicted?

The answer is Robbery. The reason given is: Robbery is larceny from the person or presence of the victim by force or intimidation. The force need not be great, but must be more than the amount necessary to effectuate taking and carrying away the property. The elements of larceny were met as soon as the defendant carried away the hat. Moreover, the force element was satisfied when the defendant tripped the runner and then struggled with the runner.

This seems totally contradictory to the essay question! I thought the whole idea was that the 'taking' has to be through the threat of force, whereas in this example, the force happened beforehand!

Whenever you see struggle, it is robbery. If sudden taking, or snatching, or without owner's noticing at the time of taking, then it's larceny.
Here, the defendant and runner struggled over the hat, then the defendant pulled it away and ran off. Defendant actually placed the runner in fear with intimidation, violence, struggle. And battery (or assault) + larceny is always = robbery.

[atcushman]

If a pick pocket takes your wallet without force it is larceny if you have knowledge of the taking and you resist then it would be robbery. The knowledge dosnt relate to the force--in the pick pocket scenario it relates to knowledge of the taking, the implication being if the victim had knowledge of the taking he or she might resist and at that point it would be robbery as a result of the force used by defendant. Also the essay is just pointing out that is an argument the defense could make...not that it is a winning one. If you run up and knock someone out you have taken by force--there, knowledge of the force before the taking is not relevant.

[swtlilsoni]

But what differentiates the multiple choice scenario from the essay scenario? Wouldn't either both be robbery, or neither be robbery?

[encore1101]

I believe the force, or threat of force, have to be used "contemporaneously" with the taking, and the force (or threat of force) have to be used to overcome resistance. There is no requirement that the force occur specifically before or after the taking.

In the flashlight example, the victim was knocked unconscious after he was hit in the head with the flashlight. So the force was not used to overcome resistance, but to knock the victim out. In the runner example, the tripping may/may not constitute force to overcome resistance, but the subsequent struggle ("the runner tried to grab the hat back from the defendant, but the defendant pulled it away and ran off") definitely constitutes force used to overcome resistance.

[Gamecubesupreme]

I believe THEMIS also had a question where a guy became unconscious by his own volition and a second person came by, saw the person, took advantage, and used force to take the guy's watch off from him.

That's still a robbery, despite the unconscious person being unaware of what was happening.

[swtlilsoni]

What the hell. I got a themis question where a lady drugged a guy, he became unconscious, then she took his watch, answer said it is robbery.
BUT THIS IS THE SAME EXACT THING AS THE FLASHLIGHT ESSAY QUESTION - they knocked him out with a flashlight, and took his stuff....she knocked him out with drugs and took his stuff.

HOW COME the flashlight one was not a robbery and this was?!

this makes no sense, i think i'm just going to get all robbery questions wrong.