Opinion ID: 1548067
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Robbery Conviction Sufficiency of Evidence

Text: Morrisey argues that the evidence was insufficient to sustain his conviction to Count XVIII of the indictment, charging him with Robbery in the First Degree. Morrisey's commission of that offense was related to the theft of Parkins' car keys. When a defendant argues that the evidence was insufficient to support a guilty verdict, the proper standard of appellate review requires this Court to determine whether any rational trier of fact, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the [prosecution], could have found the essential elements of the charged offense beyond a reasonable doubt. Robertson v. State, Del.Supr., 596 A.2d 1345, 1355 (1991) (citing Shipley v. State, Del.Supr., 570 A.2d 1159, 1170 (1990)) (emphasis in original). The record reflects that Morrisey suspected Dugan and Parkins had valuables in each of their cars. At gun point, Morrisey told them to remove their car keys from their pockets and throw them to him. Dugan and Parkins complied, throwing their keys onto the ground in Morrisey's direction. Morrisey then apparently picked up Dugan's keys but either missed or dropped Parkins' keys, which were later found on the ground in the area. Property was stolen from Dugan's car but not from Parkins' car. Morrisey argues that the State's evidence was insufficient to establish the elements of Robbery in the First Degree with respect to the taking of Parkins' keys. Under Delaware law, robbery involves, inter alia, the use or threat of force upon another person in the course of committing theft with intent to compel the owner of the property ... to deliver up the property.... 11 Del.C. § 831(2). A person is guilty of theft when he takes, exercises control over or obtains property of another person intending to deprive him of it or appropriate it. 11 Del.C. § 841. The commentary notes that the foregoing first paragraph of § 841 is considerably broader than the common law. Del.Crim.Code With Commentary 270 (1973). For example, exercise control is described as a new concept to Delaware law which covers the case where there is no asportation. Id. at 269. The first paragraph of Section 841 includes two distinct concepts of culpability. Id. at 270. The actor's intent may be either to appropriate the property for his own use or to deprive the owner of the property. Id. According to the commentary, deprive includes a disposition making it unlikely that the owner will recover the property, as where the property is left in an isolated place.  Id. (emphasis added). See also 11 Del.C. § 857(1). The commentary characterizes appropriate as a permanent or temporary  taking in which the actor's motive is personal gain. Id. (emphasis added). See also 11 Del.C. § 857(2). In this case, the object of the theft was Parkins' car keys. According to the State's evidence, Morrisey stated that he intended to use the keys to gain access to Parkins' locked car and to steal any valuables that she had left there. The State's evidence also established that Morrisey threatened Parkins with the use of force and displayed what appeared to be a handgun. The State's testimonial evidence established that Morrisey obtained or exercised control over Parkins' car keys with the intention of appropriating them for his personal gain. 11 Del.C. § 841. Although Parkins' car keys were recovered in the area of the crime scene, the commentary to Section 841 states that the term exercises control, as specifically intended, covers the case in which there is no asportation. Del.Crim.Code with Commentary 269 (1973) (emphasis added). Thus, the record reflects that, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, a rational trier of fact could have found, beyond a reasonable doubt, the essential elements of Count XVIII of the indictment, charging Morrisey with Robbery in the First Degree. [7] Robertson v. State, Del. Supr., 596 A.2d 1345, 1355 (1991).