Opinion ID: 2544661
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Victim's awareness of application of force

Text: 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.