Opinion ID: 1058514
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Attempted Robbery

Text: In Virginia, robbery is a common law crime defined as the taking, with intent to steal, of the personal property of another, from his person or in his presence, against his will, by violence or intimidation. Pierce v. Commonwealth, 205 Va. 528, 532, 138 S.E.2d 28, 31 (1964); Commonwealth v. Jones, 267 Va. 284, 286, 591 S.E.2d 68, 70 (2004); George v. Commonwealth, 242 Va. 264, 277, 411 S.E.2d 12, 20 (1991). Attempted robbery, also a common law offense, requires the Commonwealth to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that [the defendant] intended to steal personal property from [the victim], against his will, by force, violence, or intimidation. Additionally, the Commonwealth must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that [the defendant] committed a direct, but ineffectual, act to accomplish the crime. [7] Pitt v. Commonwealth, 260 Va. 692, 695, 539 S.E.2d 77, 78-79 (2000) (citing Johnson v. Commonwealth, 209 Va. 291, 293, 163 S.E.2d 570, 572-73 (1968)). Stated differently, an attempt to commit a crime consists of two elements: (1) [t]he intent to commit a crime; and (2) a direct act done towards its commission, but falling short of the execution of the ultimate design. Glover v. Commonwealth, 86 Va. (11 Hans.) 382, 385, 10 S.E. 420, 421 (1889). This second element of the crime of attempt is commonly referred to as an overt act. See, e.g., Sizemore v. Commonwealth, 218 Va. 980, 984, 243 S.E.2d 212, 214 (1978). The question as to what is [an overt] act, is often a difficult one to determine, and no general rule, which can be readily applied as a test to all cases, can be laid down. . . . Each case must, therefore, be determined upon its own facts. Hicks v. Commonwealth, 86 Va. (11 Hans.) 223, 226, 9 S.E. 1024, 1025 (1889); see also Sizemore, 218 Va. at 985, 243 S.E.2d at 215. With regard to the requirement of an overt act, the Commonwealth argues that James . . . undertook numerous direct acts toward the commission of the crime, including arranging the meeting, agreeing to the location, setting the conditions, retrieving the pistol and having Mitchell hide in the back. The Commonwealth also points to the evidence showing that James met with Detective Sloan, refused to show her the non-existent marijuana, and repeatedly tried to get her into his vehicle. James argues, however, that [b]ecause the scenario was interrupted, it is an unwarranted assumption that he was going to use force. As an alternative interpretation of the facts, James posits that it was not untenable that, if Detective Sloan had given James the money, he would have told her that he did not have any marijuana and did not intend to return the money, and would have then directed her to get out of the vehicle without ever using any force or intimidation. According to James, the evidence thus supported an attempt to obtain money by false pretenses but not robbery. We agree with James. In order to convict James for the crime of attempted robbery, the Commonwealth had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt not only that James intended to rob Detective Sloan but also that he undertook some direct, but ineffectual, act toward the consummation of taking property from Detective Sloan against her will by force, violence, or intimidation. Pitt, 260 Va. at 695, 539 S.E.2d at 78-79. While the overt acts of the accused [need not be] the last proximate acts necessary to the consummation of the crime, they [must be] direct overt acts well calculated to accomplish the result intended. Granberry v. Commonwealth, 184 Va. 674, 678, 36 S.E.2d 547, 548 (1946). As we explained in Hicks: [T]he act must reach far enough towards the accomplishment of the desired result to amount to the commencement of the consummation. It must not be merely preparatory. In other words, while it need not be the last proximate act to the consummation of the offence attempted to be perpetrated, it must approach sufficiently near to it to stand either as the first or some subsequent step in a direct movement towards the commission of the offence after the preparations are made. 86 Va. (11 Hans.) at 226-27, 9 S.E. at 1025. See also Anderson v. Commonwealth, 195 Va. 258, 264, 77 S.E.2d 846, 849 (1953). Here, the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, established James' intent to commit the crime of robbery, but it did not establish beyond a reasonable doubt the other necessary element of attempted robbery, i.e., a direct overt act that could fairly be characterized as well calculated to accomplish the result intended. Granberry, 184 Va. at 678, 36 S.E.2d at 548. Detective Sloan testified that James repeatedly asked her to get into his vehicle and that she repeatedly refused. Detective Sloan further testified that James never mentioned the firearm and that she never saw it. The Commonwealth also conceded at trial that James did not brandish the weapon. Furthermore, at no time did James threaten Sloan in order to get her into his vehicle nor did he use any type of force or violence to do so. Moreover, James neither demanded nor even asked Detective Sloan to give him the money, and he took no direct action to accomplish that result. Without any such evidence, the events leading up to the arrest of James were just as consistent with an attempt to obtain money by false pretenses as they were with an attempt to commit robbery. Cf. Parker v. Commonwealth, 275 Va. 150, 152-53, 654 S.E.2d 580, 581-82 (2008) (in affirming a conviction for obtaining money under false pretenses, the evidence established that the defendant and his girlfriend arranged to meet an undercover officer, provided a price quote, met the officer in a parking lot, and then made an exchange of fake ecstasy pills for the officer's money). When as here, the facts are equally susceptible of two interpretations one of which is consistent with the innocence of the accused, [the trier of fact] cannot arbitrarily adopt that interpretation which incriminates [the accused]. Burton v. Commonwealth, 108 Va. 892, 899, 62 S.E. 376, 379 (1908); accord Commonwealth v. Smith, 259 Va. 780, 782, 529 S.E.2d 78, 79 (2000). Stated differently, the Commonwealth had the burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that James committed the crime of attempted robbery and it failed to do so. One would have to resort to speculation and conjecture in order to find that James was attempting to rob Sloan as opposed to attempting to obtain money by false pretenses. This, of course, is impermissible. Coffey v. Commonwealth, 202 Va. 185, 188, 116 S.E.2d 257, 259 (1960) ([E]vidence is not sufficient to support a conviction if it engenders only a suspicion or even a probability of guilt. Conviction cannot rest upon conjecture.). We therefore hold as a matter of law that the evidence in this case was insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that James committed the crime of attempted robbery.