Opinion ID: 1546590
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Force or Violence

Text: Sutton contends that although the keys to Cox's car were taken by force and violence, the car itself was not. Although he does not challenge the court's jury instruction, [9] Sutton argues that the armed robbery of Cox's person (including the taking of his keys) and the theft of the car were discrete events, such that the use of force to accomplish the first cannot, as a matter of law, figure in analysis of the second. In support, he observes that Cox began to flee after ceding his keys but before his car was driven away. We cannot agree with Sutton's argument on the facts. Although Cox managed to run from his captors, he was still within their purview, under immediate threat of death, [10] at the time the car was taken. This is demonstrable from the sequence of events presented in Sutton's own brief on appeal, as quoted above in Part I. After the keys were taken from Cox and as Sutton and Smith began to drive off in their own car, Cox got up from the ground and jumped over the fence behind the friend's house, at which point Sutton and Smith stopped their car and said they were going to start shooting at hima statement from Sutton's own brief implying that Cox's assailants were in a position to do so. [A]t the same time, according to Sutton's brief, and supported by the trial transcript, Cox heard his own car start up and pull off. (Emphasis added.) This recitation effectively concedes that the violence against Cox continued until the moment his car was stolen.