Opinion ID: 2544661
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Jury Instructions Defining Robbery

Text: Defendant contends that the trial court's instructions to the jury on the offense of robbery were inadequate in two respects: (1) they failed to state that defendant's application of force must have been motivated by an intent to steal, and (2) they failed to state that the victim must have been either aware of the taking or prevented from becoming aware by the application of force.
The trial court refused a defense request for this special jury instruction: An act of force accompanied by a theft does not constitute robbery unless the act of force was motivated by an intent to steal. If the intent to steal does not arise until force has been used against the victim, no robbery has taken place. If an individual kills for reasons unrelated to theft, for example, because of anger or revenge, and then decides to take advantage of the situation by stealing some object from the person of the decedent, the taking will constitute at most a theft and not a robbery. The standard jury instructions on felony murder (CALJIC No. 8.21) and robbery (CALJIC No. 9.40), which the trial court here used to instruct the jury, adequately explain that for the crime of robbery the defendant must form the intent to steal before or during rather than after the application of force to the victim, and that the defendant must apply the force for the purpose of accomplishing the taking. ( People v. Hughes, supra, 27 Cal.4th at pp. 358-360, 116 Cal.Rptr.2d 401, 39 P.3d 432; People v. Silva (2001) 25 Cal.4th 345, 371, 106 Cal.Rptr.2d 93, 21 P.3d 769.) More specific instructions on this issue, like the one that defendant proposed here, are considered pinpoint instructions that the trial court is required to give, if at all, only upon request. ( People v. Hughes, supra, at p. 361, 116 Cal.Rptr.2d 401, 39 P.3d 432.) Here, the special instruction that defendant proposed was misleading. In stating that a defendant has not committed robbery if the intent to steal does not arise until force has been used against the victim, the instruction appears improperly to preclude a robbery conviction when the defendant has formed the intent to steal after beginning to apply force but before the application of force is concluded. Because the proposed instruction was misleading in suggesting that formation of intent to steal during the application of force was insufficient, and because the point was adequately covered by the instructions that the court did give, the trial court acted correctly in refusing to use this proposed instruction.
Defendant also contends that the trial court's instructions to the jury on the offense of robbery were inadequate because they failed to state that the victim must either have been aware of the taking or have been prevented from becoming aware by the defendant's application of force. Defendant argues, in other words, that if the victim was asleep or inebriated to the point of unconsciousness, then a person taking property from the victim's person or immediate presence would have no need to use force to prevent the victim from resisting or calling for help. An application of force in this situation, defendant argues, would not make the crime robbery, regardless of the intent of the person applying the force, because the force would not be the means by which the taking was accomplished. The Penal Code's definition of robbery, as here relevant, states that robbery is a felonious taking ... accomplished by means of force or fear. (§ 211.) Consistent with this definition, the trial court instructed the jury that the elements of robbery include a taking of property against the will of the victim accomplished either by force, violence, fear or intimidation. This instruction correctly explained the requirement that force or fear be used to accomplish the taking. If defendant thought the point needed additional clarification or explanation, defendant should have requested appropriate clarifying or amplifying language ( People v. Andrews (1989) 49 Cal.3d 200, 218, 260 Cal.Rptr. 583, 776 P.2d 285); absent such a request, the point is not preserved for appellate review.