COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Benton, Elder and Annunziata 

Argued at Richmond, Virginia 

KENNETH GAYLOCK WINN 

 OPINION BY 

v. Record No. 0861-94-2 JUDGE LARRY G. ELDER 

 OCTOBER 24, 1995 

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA 

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF HENRICO COUNTY 

George F. Tidey, Judge 

 B. Craig Dunkum (Duane & Shannon, P.C., on 

 briefs), for appellant. 

 Monica S. McElyea, Assistant Attorney 

 General (James S. Gilmore, III, Attorney 

 General, on brief), for appellee. 

 Kenneth Gaylock Winn (appellant) appeals his conviction for 

robbery in violation of Code § 18.2-58. Appellant contends the 

evidence failed to prove he used violence or intimidation against 

the victim to take the victim's purse, a necessary element to 

support his conviction. Under the facts of this case, we agree 

and reverse the robbery conviction. 

 I. 

 The victim was walking through the parking lot of a Ukrop's 

Grocery Store in Henrico County at approximately 8:30 p.m. on 

November 13, 1993, after having purchased groceries. As the 

victim walked toward her car, accompanied by a Ukrop's employee, 

she heard footsteps behind her. Appellant appeared from behind 

the victim and "took" her purse from her. The purse strap, which 

was worn over the victim's shoulder, was "very strongly" removed 
 2 

and the purse taken from under her arm. The victim testified 

that there was no struggle between her and appellant and that the 

entire event lasted mere seconds. Although the victim and the 

Ukrop's employee immediately chased appellant, he escaped with 

the purse. He was thereafter apprehended. Appellant was tried 

without a jury and convicted of robbery. 

 II. 

 We hold under the facts of this case that the Commonwealth 

produced insufficient evidence to convict appellant of robbery, 

as appellant did not use violence or intimidation against the 

victim to effect the theft of the victim's purse. In reaching 

this determination, we are guided by certain principles. 

When the sufficiency of the evidence is challenged on 

appeal, it is well established that we must view the 

evidence in the light most favorable to the 

Commonwealth, granting to it all reasonable inferences 

fairly deducible therefrom. The conviction will be 

disturbed only if plainly wrong or without evidence to 

support it. 

 The elements of robbery, a common law offense in 

Virginia, include a "'taking, with intent to steal, of 

the personal property of another, from his person or in 

his presence, against his will, by violence or 

intimidation'" which precedes or is "concomitant with 

the taking." 

Jones v. Commonwealth, 13 Va. App. 566, 572, 414 S.E.2d 193, 196 

(1992)(emphasis added)(citations omitted). 

 "The touching or violation necessary to prove [robbery] may 

be indirect, but cannot result merely from the force associated 

with the taking." Bivins v. Commonwealth, 19 Va. App. 750, 752, 

454 S.E.2d 741, 742 (1995)(citation omitted). Instead, 
 3 

"[v]iolence or force requires a physical touching or violation of 

the victim's person." Id. In support of this concept, the 

Bivins Court cited with approval People v. Thomas, 119 Ill. App. 

3d. 464, 75 Ill. Dec. 1, 2, 456 N.E.2d 684, 685 (1983), which 

stated, "'the offense of robbery . . . is not related to the 

force used on the object taken but to the force or intimidation 

directed at the person of the victim.'" Id. at 753-54, 454 

S.E.2d at 743. See also Mason v. Commonwealth, 200 Va. 253, 255, 

105 S.E.2d 149, 151 (1958)("[r]obbery is an offense against the 

person")(emphasis added). 

 Appellant admits he took the victim's purse with the intent 

to steal it. The focus of appellant's insufficiency claim is 

based wholly upon the evidence related to proof of the essential 

element of robbery--that the actor used violence or intimidation 

directed against the victim to effect the taking. Appellant 

argues he used no more force than was necessary to accomplish the 

removal of the purse from the victim's shoulder and arm. Absent 

the violence/intimidation element, appellant contends he could 

only have been convicted of larceny from the person in violation 

of Code § 18.2-95, which carries a less severe punishment. 

 The Commonwealth asserts that because the victim testified 

appellant "took" her purse "very strongly" and ran with it, the 

trial court could have reasonably inferred appellant used 

violence to effectuate the taking. We disagree with the 

Commonwealth. Although no Virginia cases have decided whether a 
 4 

"purse snatching" is a robbery or a larceny from the person, we 

are guided by the decisions of other jurisdictions. Some states 

have held that the mere snatching of another's purse constitutes 

robbery, yet most states have determined that such a "sudden 

taking of property from the person of another does not in itself 

involve such force, violence, or putting in fear as will 

constitute robbery," and instead constitutes larceny. Peter G. 

Guthrie, Purse Snatching as Robbery or Theft, 42 A.L.R.3d 1381, 

1383 (1972 & 1994 Supp.). These jurisdictions have held that 

there must be "additional circumstances at the time of the 

snatching tending to transform the taking from a larceny to a 

robbery." Id. For example, these circumstances are present when 

a struggle ensues, where the victim is knocked down, or where the 

victim is put in fear--in other words, where the defendant 

employs violence or intimidation against the victim's person. 

See, e.g., People v. Middleton, 623 N.Y.S.2d 298, 299 (N.Y. App. 

Div. 1995)(reversing robbery conviction where the victim was not 

intimidated, knocked down, struck, or injured, even where the 

victim's purse was found with a broken shoulder strap); State v. 

Sein, 590 A.2d 665, 668 (N.J. 1991)(following "predominant view 

[that] there is insufficient force to constitute robbery when the 

thief snatches property from the owner's grasp so suddenly that 

the owner cannot offer any resistance to the taking"); State v. 

Williams, 521 A.2d 150, 155 (Conn. 1987)(affirming robbery 

conviction where purse snatching left bruises on the victim's 
 5 

shoulder; jury could have inferred that the victim offered 

resistance to the force exerted to wrench the shoulder strap from 

her). Contra People v. Brooks, 559 N.E.2d 859, 862 (Ill. App. 

Ct. 1990)("a simple snatching or sudden taking of property from 

an unsuspecting person will be insufficient force to constitute 

robbery;" however, if "the property is so attached to the 

victim's person or clothing as to create resistance to the 

taking," robbery may be proven); Raiford v. State, 447 A.2d 496, 

500 (Md.Ct.Spec.App. 1982)(affirming robbery conviction where the 

victim's shoulder strap was ripped from her arm and stating that 

"purse was so attached to her person as to afford resistance to 

the taking"), aff'd in pertinent part, 462 A.2d 1192 (Md. 1983). 

 The Commonwealth relies on Maxwell v. Commonwealth, 165 Va. 

860, 864, 183 S.E. 452, 454 (1936), in which the Supreme Court 

stated that only "slight" violence, or anything that calls out 

for resistance, is enough to establish the violence/intimidation 

element of robbery. However, the record in this case is devoid 

of even "slight" violence against the victim or resistance from 

the victim. Here, no evidence proved that appellant touched the 

victim's person at any time or that the victim resisted the 

removal of the purse. This case also differs from Broady v. 

Commonwealth, 16 Va. App. 281, 429 S.E.2d 468 (1993), cited by 

the Commonwealth. In Broady, we held that appellant was guilty 

of robbery where he struggled with the victim for her purse and 

in the process pushed the victim six to eight feet against her 
 6 

car. In this case, there was no evidence of any physical contact 

or struggle. 

 As appellant contends, this case is more similar to Johnson 

v. Commonwealth, 65 Va. (24 Gratt.) 555 (1873), in which the 

defendant was convicted of larceny from the person. In Johnson, 

the Supreme Court held that the facts supported a larceny 

conviction where the victim held money in his open hand as the 

defendant walked by, and the defendant took the money out of the 

victim's hand and kept walking. 65 Va. at 557-58. In this case, 

the "very strong" force employed by appellant was the force 

necessary to remove the purse from the victim's shoulder, not the 

force associated with violence against or resistance from the 

victim. 

 We hold that under the facts of this case, there was 

insufficient evidence of violence or intimidation against the 

victim's person to convict appellant of robbery. Accordingly, we 

reverse appellant's conviction and remand with leave for the 

Commonwealth to proceed on other appropriate charges if it be so 

advised. 

Reversed and remanded.