Opinion ID: 1060454
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Theft as a Lesser-included Offense

Text: As to the offense of robbery, the trial court did not submit theft as a lesser-included offense to the jury. The Court of Criminal Appeals found that this was error, and reversed the conviction for robbery. The State appeals. It is uncontested that theft is a lesser-included offense of robbery. See State v. Fitz, 19 S.W.3d 213, 216 (Tenn.2000). At issue is the second inquiry of the Burns analysis, whether the evidence, viewed liberally in a light most favorable to a finding of the lesser-included offense, is such that reasonable minds could find the lesser-included offense, and whether the evidence is legally sufficient to support a conviction for the lesser-included offense. Burns, 6 S.W.3d at 469. In making this determination, this Court does not make any judgments on the credibility of the evidence that may support the finding of the lesser-included offense, nor is it necessary that the Court find that a basis exists for acquitting the defendant of the greater offense. See Burns, 6 S.W.3d at 468-69. Theft is committed if, with intent to deprive the owner of property, the person knowingly obtains or exercises control over the property without the owner's effective consent. Tenn.Code Ann. § 39-14-103 (1997). Robbery is the intentional or knowing theft of property from the person of another by violence or putting the person in fear. Tenn.Code Ann. § 39-13-401(a) (1997). Thus, it is the use of violence or fear that elevates a theft to robbery. Violence is defined as physical force unlawfully exercised so as to injure, damage or abuse. Fitz, 19 S.W.3d at 217. The fear constituting an element of [robbery] is fear of present personal peril from violence offered or impending. Britt v. State, 26 Tenn. (7 Hum.) 45 (1846). It must be a fear of bodily danger or impending peril to the person, id., which intimidates and promotes submission to the theft of the property. Either the existence of violence or fear will heighten the offense to a robbery. James v. State, 215 Tenn. 221, 385 S.W.2d 86, 88 (1964). Based on the testimony describing the violent acts which occurred in Thomas Dobbs's presence, including the admission of Bowles himself that he grabbed Kathleen Dobbs and threw her to the floor, we conclude that the evidence was sufficient to support Bowles's conviction for robbery. In proving robbery, however, the State also proved theft, for all of the elements of theft are included within the elements of robbery. Thus, evidence existed which would support an instruction on the lesser-included offense of theft. As established above, it is not necessary that Bowles demonstrate a rational basis for acquittal on the robbery charge before theft could be submitted to the jury as a lesser-included offense; he merely must demonstrate that evidence also exists which rational minds could accept as to the offense of theft. Because all of the elements of theft are supported by the evidence, it was error for the trial court not to instruct the jury regarding that offense. Moreover, while it is certainly possible that the jury would have convicted Bowles of robbery even if it had been given an instruction concerning theft, we cannot say that the State has demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt that the result would not have been different had a theft instruction been given. This case is not like Williams , where the jury had an opportunity to consider an intermediate lesser-included offense but rejected it. See 977 S.W.2d at 106. As stated in Ely & Bowers, distinguishing Williams on circumstances similar to those of the case at bar: The error in failing to charge voluntary manslaughter [in Williams ] was deemed harmless beyond a reasonable doubt because by rejecting the lesser offense of second-degree murder, the jury clearly demonstrated its disinclination to convict on any lesser offenses, including voluntary manslaughter. In contrast, the jury in this case was given no option to convict of a lesser offense.... Although the evidence clearly was sufficient to support a conviction for [lesser-included offenses], the decision to convict on those offenses was taken away from the jury. Under these circumstances, we cannot say the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Ely & Bowers, 48 S.W.3d at 727. The logic of Ely & Bowers applies with equal force to the case at bar. Because the State has not met its burden of proving that the trial court's error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, Bowles must receive a new trial on the robbery conviction.