Opinion ID: 2599854
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Robbery and robbery-murder special circumstance

Text: Defendant contends his conviction for robbery and the robbery-murder special-circumstance finding must be reversed for insufficient evidence, relying on several theories. First, he argues the evidence was insufficient that he formed the intent to steal before or during the application of force to the victim. ( People v. Yeoman (2003) 31 Cal.4th 93, 129, 2 Cal.Rptr.3d 186, 72 P.3d 1166.) We disagree. Candina Bravo testified that, just hours before the murder, defendant asked her for money. According to Gabriel Arce, defendant's practice when the victim refused his requests for money was just to take it from her purse. That defendant, immediately after killing the victim, stole several items from her home and then offered them for sale to Leonard Mercado, is also relevant circumstantial evidence of his intent at the time of the murder. Although the evidence is circumstantial, the intent required for robbery ... is seldom established with direct evidence but instead is usually inferred from all the facts and circumstances surrounding the crime. ( People v. Lewis (2001) 25 Cal.4th 610, 643, 106 Cal.Rptr.2d 629, 22 P.3d 392.) We conclude substantial evidence supports the jury's implied finding that defendant harbored the intent to steal before or during the murder. Second, defendant argues the evidence was insufficient he stole the victim's property by means of force or fear. The crime of robbery, of course, 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. (§ 211, italics added.) Because the victim was already dead when he took her property, defendant argues, he cannot be found to have stolen from her by means of force or fear. The point is meritless. [I]t is settled that a victim of robbery may be unconscious or even dead when the property is taken, so long as the defendant used force against the victim to take the property. ( People v. Jackson (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 1326,1330, 27 Cal.Rptr.3d 793, citing People v. Frye (1998) 18 Cal.4th 894, 956, 77 Cal.Rptr.2d 25, 959 P.2d 183.) There is no requirement a victim be aware that someone was taking his or her property. ( Jackson, at p. 1330, 27 Cal.Rptr.3d 793.) It was defendant who applied the force to this victim, and substantial evidence was presented to show that he did so with the intent to steal. We thus reject his arguments. Third, defendant argues there was insufficient evidence he removed the victim's property from [her] person or immediate presence. (§ 211.) The generally accepted definition of immediate presence ... is that `[a] thing is in the [immediate] presence of a person, in respect to robbery, which is so within his reach, inspection, observation or control, that he could, if not overcome by violence or prevented by fear, retain his possession of it.' ( People v. Hayes (1990) 52 Cal.3d 577, 626-627, 276 Cal.Rptr. 874, 802 P.2d 376.) This element was satisfied by evidence defendant took electronic equipment from the victim's bedroom, the same location in which she was killed. Moreover, even taking her car or items from another bedroom would qualify: The zone of immediate presence [for purposes of robbery] includes the area `within which the victim could reasonably be expected to exercise some physical control over his property.' ( People v. Webster (1991) 54 Cal.3d 411, 440, 285 Cal.Rptr. 31, 814 P.2d 1273; see People v. Holt (1997) 15 Cal.4th 619, 675, 63 Cal.Rptr.2d 782, 937 P.2d 213 [although victim was killed in the bedroom, items in her kitchen were in her immediate presence for robbery purposes].) We also reject as unsupported defendant's further argument that the items he took were not in the victim's immediate presence because [a] deceased individual is no longer a person and therefore cannot have actual or constructive possession of property. To the contrary, [w]hile it may be true that one cannot rob a person who is already dead when one first arrives on the scene, one can certainly rob a living person by killing that person and then taking his or her property. ( People v. Navarette (2003) 30 Cal.4th 458, 499, 133 Cal.Rptr.2d 89, 66 P.3d 1182.) In sum, we find sufficient evidence to support defendant's conviction for robbery and the robbery-murder special circumstance.