Opinion ID: 848860
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: force after initial taking

Text: Finally, an analysis of the common law supports the view that force used after an initial wrongful seizure of property, to prevent the victim's resistance or to escape with the property, is sufficient to satisfy the elements of the crime of robbery. The common-law crime of robbery was defined as the unlawful taking possession of the goods of another by means of violence or threats of violence, used with the object of obtaining those goods from the owner, without his consent and with the intention of depriving him permanently of all the benefits of his ownership. 1 Odgers, The Common Law of England (2d ed.), ch. VIII, p. 331. In this work, which is a compilation of all important statutes and decisions, the authors declare that where a person used any personal violence at the time of or immediately before or immediately after such robbery, he may be sentenced as a robber was at that time, to penal servitude for life. Id. The difference between larceny and robbery is further explained: If the only violence used occurs accidentally and unintentionally in the prisoner's efforts to obtain possession of the property, the offence is larceny from the person and not robbery. But if violence is necessary to enable the prisoner to obtain possession of the property, and the prisoner on discovering this intentionally resorts to violence with that object, this is robbery. Id. at 332. In an example that follows, the author sets out the distinction between the successful escape and the violent altercation before the robber completes the escape: Thus, the snatching of a purse from a prosecutor, who is unaware of what is happening until after the purse is gone from his possession, cannot amount to robbery; but it will be otherwise if the prisoner does something to put the prosecutor in bodily fear before snatching the purse, for here the fear precedes the taking. So, if the prisoner obtains possession of the property without actual violence or threats of violence, the crime is only larceny from the person, unless the prisoner immediately after taking possession of the property uses personal violence. [ Id. ] Finally, the common-law indictment for robbery was pled as follows: A.B., on the ___ day of _____, in the county of, robbed C.D. of a watch, and at the time of or immediately before or immediately after such robbery did use personal violence to the said C.D. [2 Odgers, at 1478.] Compare the view expressed by Rapalje in 1892, which also supports the view that the force element of robbery can occur after the initial seizure of the property: To constitute robbery, the force used must be either before or at the time of the taking and of such a nature as to show that it was intended to overpower the party robbed, or to prevent resistance on his part, and not merely to get possession of the property.  Rapalje, Larceny & Kindred Offenses (1892), § 446, p. 637 (emphasis added). These views are more precise with regard to the actual nature of the crime of robbery as one of force against the victim to remove property from his presence. It is the use of force not merely to get possession, but also, to prevent resistance that satisfies the elements of the crime. Id. [18] In my judgment, the majority errs in concluding that the common law of robbery would not support defendant's conviction in the instant case. The common law, which, as the majority acknowledges, has been incorporated into M.C.L. § 750.530, supported a conviction for robbery when a perpetrator used force against the victim even after the property had already been taken by the perpetrator, if the perpetrator used that force to prevent the victim's resistance or to escape with the property. This is what occurred in this case. [19]