Opinion ID: 2712493
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: the dissent’s risk-of-altercation test

Text: In explaining its interpretation of the law, the dissent describes its test for whether a taking occurs in the immediate presence of a victim as whether “a taking of such 64 Id. 65 Post at 17. 66 See Perkins & Boyce, p 340 (internal citation omitted) (“If property is in the pocket of some person within the building, or under his personal care at the moment in some other way, it is not regarded as within the protection of the building . . . [and t]he stealing of such property . . . [is a] larceny from the person.”). 21 property triggers a substantial risk that a violent altercation will occur.”67 The most significant problem with this new test is that it expands the prohibited taking zone well beyond a person’s immediate presence and into a large and undefined area.68 The limits of this new prohibited taking zone are difficult to discern and likely arbitrary. A victim could plausibly observe a thief from 100 feet away and yet still have a chance of catching up to and confronting the thief if the victim chose to do so. Hence, even a taking at this distance could trigger “a substantial risk that a violent altercation will occur.” Because the typical store theft occurs well within this range, it would seem that, under the dissent’s proposed standard, most routine shoplifting incidents could be charged as larcenies from the person. That result conflicts with the established limits of the immediate presence standard. 69