Opinion ID: 1928076
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Robbery and Robbery Of A Senior Citizen

Text: We turn first to the evidence pertaining to the crimes of robbery and robbery of a senior citizen. The robbery count of the indictment against Zanders and Harris charged that they took the wallet belonging to James Routson. The robbery of a senior citizen count charged that the two men took a wallet belonging to Raymond Sokolov. D.C.Code § 22-2901 provides that: Whoever by force or violence, whether against resistance or by sudden or stealthy seizure or snatching, or by putting in fear, shall take from the person or immediate actual possession of another anything of value, is guilty of robbery, and any person convicted thereof shall suffer imprisonment for not less than two years nor more than 15 years. To prove robbery in this case, the government must show that Zanders and Harris: (1) took property of some value from the complainant against the complainant's will; (2) took the property from the immediate actual possession of the complainant, or from the complainant's person; (3) used force or violence to take the property, by taking the property by sudden or stealthy seizure or by snatching; (4) carried the property away; and (5) took the property without right to it, and with the specific intent to steal it. CRIMINAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, No. 4.46 (4th ed. 1993). [5] To prove robbery of a senior citizen, the government must meet the elements of robbery and in addition, must show that the victim of the robbery was sixty years of age or older. See Fields v. United States, 547 A.2d 138 (D.C.1988). We conclude that the government failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Zanders and Harris took the wallets from the immediate actual possession of Dr. Sokolov and Mr. Routson, or from their persons, or that a pickpocketing even took place. There was no direct evidence that Zanders and Harris took the wallets, and no expert testimony as to the methods used by pickpockets to remove wallets from the clothing of individuals, or the amount of force necessary to pick a pocket. Hence, there was neither direct nor indirect evidence of a taking of property from Dr. Sokolov or Mr. Routson by anyone, much less by Zanders or Harris. See United States v. McGill, 159 U.S.App. D.C. 337, 487 F.2d 1208 (1973). The evidence presented is just as consistent, at least on a reasonable doubt standard, with both victims having lost their wallets and the defendants having found them and having used the credit cards without authority. In short, the government failed to establish the corpus delicti of the offense of robbery. In other words, the government failed to show, that the victims were dispossessed of their wallets by some person or persons by stealth or other means. Based upon the evidence presented and viewing this evidence in the light most favorable to the government, we cannot say beyond a reasonable doubt that Zanders and Harris committed robbery, or that a pickpocketing even took place. There is no evidence from which a reasonable mind might fairly infer guilt [of robbery or robbery of a senior citizen] beyond a reasonable doubt. Gayden, 584 A.2d at 580. Without deciding that such evidence, without more, would have been sufficient, we think, at the very least, that with expert testimony pertaining to methods used by pickpockets, the jury may have had a reasonable basis on which to infer guilt. [6] On facts virtually indistinguishable from the encounter here between the victims and the two men in the subway station, we upheld the introduction of expert testimony because it aided the jury in determining the significance of seemingly innocent acts on the part of the accused perpetrators. Hooks v. United States, 373 A.2d 909, 911 (D.C.1977); but see also Lampkins v. United States, 401 A.2d 966, 968-70 (D.C.1979). However, no such testimony was presented here and the jury had no basis for concluding that the seemingly innocent acts of the two men in the metro station in fact constituted a robbery. Accordingly, whatever inferences the jury made to infer guilt were not reasonable. As we said in Quarles v. United States: [W]e are of the opinion that the evidence is so lacking in substance that it cannot support an inference, beyond a reasonable doubt, of guilty participation in robbery. 308 A.2d 773, 775 (D.C.1973). Furthermore, reasonable jurors could not conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that either Zanders or Harris was guilty of aiding and abetting the robbery of Dr. Sokolov or Mr. Routson, without entering the forbidden territory of conjecture and speculation. Curry v. United States, 520 A.2d 255, 263 (D.C.1987). The trial judge should have dismissed the robbery and robbery of a senior citizen charges before the case reached the jury because, without the establishment of the corpus delicti, there was no evidence upon which a reasonable juror could infer guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Consequently, we are constrained to reverse the convictions of Zanders and Harris for robbery and robbery of a senior citizen.