Opinion ID: 2544661
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Theft as motive for application of force

Text: The trial court refused a defense request for this special jury instruction: An act of force accompanied by a theft does not constitute robbery unless the act of force was motivated by an intent to steal. If the intent to steal does not arise until force has been used against the victim, no robbery has taken place. If an individual kills for reasons unrelated to theft, for example, because of anger or revenge, and then decides to take advantage of the situation by stealing some object from the person of the decedent, the taking will constitute at most a theft and not a robbery. The standard jury instructions on felony murder (CALJIC No. 8.21) and robbery (CALJIC No. 9.40), which the trial court here used to instruct the jury, adequately explain that for the crime of robbery the defendant must form the intent to steal before or during rather than after the application of force to the victim, and that the defendant must apply the force for the purpose of accomplishing the taking. ( People v. Hughes, supra, 27 Cal.4th at pp. 358-360, 116 Cal.Rptr.2d 401, 39 P.3d 432; People v. Silva (2001) 25 Cal.4th 345, 371, 106 Cal.Rptr.2d 93, 21 P.3d 769.) More specific instructions on this issue, like the one that defendant proposed here, are considered pinpoint instructions that the trial court is required to give, if at all, only upon request. ( People v. Hughes, supra, at p. 361, 116 Cal.Rptr.2d 401, 39 P.3d 432.) Here, the special instruction that defendant proposed was misleading. In stating that a defendant has not committed robbery if the intent to steal does not arise until force has been used against the victim, the instruction appears improperly to preclude a robbery conviction when the defendant has formed the intent to steal after beginning to apply force but before the application of force is concluded. Because the proposed instruction was misleading in suggesting that formation of intent to steal during the application of force was insufficient, and because the point was adequately covered by the instructions that the court did give, the trial court acted correctly in refusing to use this proposed instruction.