Opinion ID: 1447881
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Trial Court's Response to Jury Question About Robbery

Text: (15) Defendant argues that his robbery conviction should be reversed because the trial court improperly responded to a question from the jury about the robbery charge. During deliberations, the jury sent the trial court a note with this question: Is the stealing of the [victim's] silver car considered a robbery? In the presence of the jury, the trial judge read this question aloud in court. The judge then told the jury: [T]he issue is whether there was an intent to permanently deprive. If you conclude or find that Mr. Wader took the car and intended to return it, then there would not be robbery. If you conclude or find that when he took the car, that he meant to permanently deprive, there could have been a robbery. (Italics added.) Defendant's counsel then asked for a sidebar conference, during which he suggested that the jury's question could have been directed to the kidnapping-for-robbery count. Thereafter, the trial judge informed the jury: Ladies and gentlemen, if that question was directed to the 209 count, that is the kidnapping for the purpose of committing a robbery, then the intention to permanently deprive that's the issue we have been talking about, has to be present at the time the movement of the car commenced. At the time he got in the car and the car began to move. Defendant characterizes the trial court's response to the jury's question as potentially misleading. He focuses on the court's statement, italicized above, If you conclude or find that Mr. Wader took the car and intended to return it, then there would not be robbery. According to defendant, the most plausible interpretation of the evidence is that when he took the victim's car, he intended to use it to commit other crimes and then to abandon it. Under this scenario, he would not have intended to permanently deprive the victim of her car when he took it, but he would not have intended to return it to her either. Under these facts, defendant asserts, he would not be guilty of robbery. But, defendant argues, the trial court's response to the jury misleadingly indicated that on these facts he would be guilty of robbery. We perceive no error in the trial court's response to the jury. The prosecution retained the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant intended to permanently deprive the victim of her car at the time the car was put in motion. Nothing in the court's reply to the jury's question altered the prosecution's burden of proof. Nor did the court's response tell the jury that if defendant intended to abandon the car and not return it to the victim, defendant would be guilty of robbery. Considered in context, the trial court's comment of which defendant complains โ [i]f you conclude or find that Mr. Wader took the car and intended to return it, then there would not be robbery โ was correct.