Opinion ID: 854136
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Sufficient Evidence for Robbery

Text: Robinson argues that he could not be properly convicted of robbery because [a] dead man cannot be robbed. (Appellant's Br. at 35.) Robbery is committed when [a] person [] knowingly or intentionally takes property from another person ... by using or threatening the use of force on any person.... Ind.Code Ann. § 35-42-5-1 (West 1986). Robinson notes that the State was obligated to prove that the property was taken from a person. The criminal code defines person, by reference to the definition of human being, as an individual who has been born and is alive. Ind.Code Ann. § 35-41-1-22 (West Supp.1997); Ind.Code Ann. § 35-41-1-14 (West 1986). Because the evidence shows Hobbs was dead at the time the property was taken, Robinson contends the State did not prove he took property from a person. In addressing the issue of sufficiency of the evidence, we affirm if, considering only the probative evidence and reasonable inferences supporting the verdict, without weighing evidence or assessing witness credibility, a reasonable trier of fact could conclude that defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Paul v. State, 612 N.E.2d 1060, 1062 (Ind.1993). The record contains abundant evidence that the taking of Hobbs' property was effectuated by the use of force against him while he was still alive. That Robinson waited until after Hobbs' death actually to take the property is of no moment. [2]