Opinion ID: 1878632
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: tbut

Text: Although TBUT is a lesser-included offense of Robbery, [4] it is well-settled that an instruction on a lesser included offense is required only if, considering the totality of the evidence, the jury might have a reasonable doubt as to the defendant's guilt of the greater offense, and yet believe beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty of the lesser offense. [5] The Kentucky Penal Code defines First-Degree Robbery as follows: A person is guilty of robbery in the first degree when, in the course of committing theft, he uses or threatens the immediate use of physical force upon another person with intent to accomplish the theft and when he: (a) Causes physical injury to any person who is not a participant in the crime; or (b) Is armed with a deadly weapon; or (c) Uses or threatens the immediate use of a dangerous instrument upon any person who is not a participant in the crime. [6] And, under the Penal Code, a person commits Second-Degree Robbery when, in the course of committing theft, he uses or threatens the immediate use of physical force upon another person with intent to accomplish the theft. [7] Thus, Robbery, regardless of whether First or Second-Degree, is the use or threat of immediate use of physical force upon another in the course of committing a theft with the intent to accomplish the theft. [8] If the act is accompanied by an aggravating circumstance, [ i.e., physical injury to another person, a perpetrator armed with a deadly weapon, or a perpetrator who threatens the use of a dangerous instrument,] the offense is robbery in the first degree. [9] The trial court instructed the jury on First and Second-Degree Robbery as follows: First-Degree Robbery You will find the Defendant, Reginald Mack, guilty of First-Degree Robbery under this Instruction if, and only if, you believe from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt all of the following: A. That in Bell County, Kentucky, on or about the 27th day of March, 2002, and before the finding of the Indictment herein, he stole a purse from Lill[ie] Mae Evans; B. That in the course of so doing and with the intent to accomplish the theft, he caused physical injury to Lill[ie] Mae Evans by pushing and/or shoving her to the ground. Second-Degree Robbery If you do not find the Defendant guilty under Instruction No. 1, you will find the Defendant guilty of Second-Degree Robbery under this instruction if, and only if, you believe from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt all of the following: A. That in Bell County, Kentucky, on or about the 27th day of March, 2002, and before the finding of the Indictment herein, he stole a purse from Lill[ie] Mae Evans; B. That in the course of so doing and with the intent to accomplish the theft, he used physical force upon Lill[ie] Mae Evans by pushing and/or shoving her to the ground. Appellant contends that his admitted use of force upon Evans was not used in the course of [committing the theft of her purse] and with the intent to accomplish the theft because [i]t was not until after he had gained control over the purse that Ms. Evans then suffered an unintentional assault. We disagree with Appellant's contention because a use or threat of force during escape from a completed or attempted theft will ... satisfy the requirement [of in the course of committing theft] and support a conviction. [10] And, in the present case, that is exactly what the jury found and what Appellant undisputedly did; he used force on Evans during his escape with her purse, and because it resulted in physical injury to her, Appellant was guilty of First-Degree Robbery. We do not believe that the jury could have reasonably doubted Appellant's guilt of Robbery, and yet believe beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was guilty of TBUT. Accordingly, we hold that the trial court did not err in refusing to instruct on TBUT as a lesser-included offense of Robbery.