Opinion ID: 2575903
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: Sufficiency of Evidence for Robbery-related Findings

Text: Defendant contends that there was insufficient evidence to convict him of robbery and find true the related felony-murder special-circumstance allegation, in violation of due process guaranties under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the federal Constitution. There was sufficient evidence to support the robbery conviction if, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of robbery beyond a reasonable doubt. ( Jackson v. Virginia (1979) 443 U.S. 307, 319, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560.) The same standard applies to review of the claim that there was insufficient evidence to find true the related felony-murder special circumstance. ( People v. Osband, supra, 13 Cal.4th 622, 690, 55 Cal.Rptr.2d 26, 919 P.2d 640.) There was sufficient evidence for a rational trier of fact to convict defendant and find true the special-circumstance allegation under the standard stated above. Robbery is the felonious taking of personal property in the possession of another, from his person or immediate presence, and against his will, accomplished by means of force or fear. (ї 211.) To be convicted of robbery, the perpetrator must intend to deprive the victim of the property permanently. ( People v. Seaton, supra, 26 Cal.4th 598, 671, 110 Cal.Rptr.2d 441, 28 P.3d 175; People v. Wader (1993) 5 Cal.4th 610, 645-646, 20 Cal.Rptr.2d 788, 854 P.2d 80.) Robbery requires the intent to steal . . . either before or during the commission of the act of force ( People v. Marshall (1997) 15 Cal.4th 1, 34, 61 Cal.Rptr.2d 84, 931 P.2d 262), because [i]f [the] intent to steal arose after the victim was assaulted, the robbery element of stealing by force or fear is absent ( People v. Webster (1991) 54 Cal.3d 411, 443, 285 Cal.Rptr. 31, 814 P.2d 1273). Defendant testified that he wrested the shotgun from Lees, meaning to steal it at the time the struggle ensued, and had no intention of giving it back to her. (See post, 41 Cal. Rptr.3d at pp. 629-630, 131 P.3d at pp. 1025-1026.) The shotgun was later found in the pickup truck that defendant stole from Lees. The prosecution's evidence and defendant's testimony clearly establish that a robbery occurred. A rational trier of fact could conclude only that defendant robbed Lees of her shotgun. The only intent required to find the felony-murder-robbery special-circumstance allegation true is the intent to commit the robbery before or during the killing. ( People v. Koontz (2002) 27 Cal.4th 1041, 1079-1080, 119 Cal.Rptr.2d 859, 46 P.3d 335; People v. Musselwhite (1998) 17 Cal.4th 1216, 1263, 74 Cal.Rptr.2d 212, 954 P.2d 475.) As explained, there was ample evidence that defendant intended to rob Lees of her shotgun at the outset of the struggle that occurred before he killed her with it. We reject defendant's claim of insufficient evidence to find true the felony-murder-robbery special circumstance.