Opinion ID: 1393358
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The takings from the victim's office and home

Text: The takings of items from Atherton's office and home must be analyzed somewhat differently. The items of property removed from those premises were obviously not taken directly from the victim's person. Instead, it was the prosecution's theory that they were taken from within Atherton's immediate presence. In each instance Atherton was being forcibly restrained in a vehicle parked outside of, first his office complex, then his home, while the premises were looted. During the office takings, Atherton, blindfolded and handcuffed, was being guarded in his Mazda in the parking lot of the office complex approximately 35 feet from his office building, and 80 feet from a second building which the group subsequently entered and looted. Access to these buildings was gained using keys from the key ring taken earlier from Atherton's person by Frank P. During the subsequent house takings, Atherton, still blindfolded and handcuffed, was being restrained in the stolen Mercury which was parked around the corner of the same block on which his home was located. Once again, access to the home was gained using a key from the key ring removed earlier from the victim's person during the initial forcible abduction. Two or three suitcases full of items were removed from Atherton's residence to the vehicles, including firearms, ammunition, leather jackets, and ATM cards from Atherton's safe which defendant retained in his possession. The circumstance that Atherton was being forcibly detained during the office and home takings, while items of his property were being seized from his home and office premises at the distances from him indicated above, is of particular legal significance to the question of whether these takings were accomplished in his immediate presence. Under these circumstances, it can be said that but for the use of force, blindfolding, handcuffing, and the ensuing captivity, Atherton's relative proximity to his office building complex (35 to 80 feet) and home (around the corner of the same block) would have allowed him to take effective physical steps to retain control of his property, and to prevent defendant and his companions from stealing it. ( Webster, supra, 54 Cal.3d at p. 440 [victim lured one-quarter mile away from his car by robbers who attacked and killed him and then stole his car; immediate presence requirement found satisfied].) ` The trick or device by which the physical presence of the [victim] was detached from the property under his [ possession ] and control should not avail defendant in his claim that the property was not taken from the immediate presence of the victim.' ( Webster, supra, 54 Cal.3d at p. 441, italics in original, quoting People v. Lavender (1934) 137 Cal. App. 582, 591 [31 P.2d 439]; see also People v. Ramos (1982) 30 Cal.3d 553 [180 Cal. Rptr. 266, 639 P.2d 908] [immediate presence requirement satisfied where victims are put in a walk-in refrigerator while money is taken from a cash register]; People v. Gordon (1982) 136 Cal. App.3d 519 [186 Cal. Rptr. 373] [immediate presence requirement satisfied where victims are tied up in one room while property is taken from another room].) (2c) In this regard, the facts of the present case are fundamentally distinguishable from those we faced in Hayes, supra, 52 Cal.3d 577. In Hayes, the victim, a motel manager, was murdered in a motel room a distance of 107 feet from his office/living quarters from which property was thereafter stolen. Since the victim was murdered first and then his office/living quarters were looted, the inquiry as to whether the takings were from his immediate presence was necessarily a limited one. By the defendant's own testimony, the taking activity in which he participated [10] occurred after the killing; the only overt acts that could have been perceived by the victim were those associated with the 22 fatal stab wounds inflicted upon him. Given those facts, our primary focus in Hayes was on the possibility that the jury, misinstructed under Miramon-Brown, might improperly find the immediate presence requirement satisfied by the victim's perception of the force inflicted upon him, thereby rendering the taking requirement redundant with the force or fear requirement. As for the significance of the 107-foot distance in Hayes, we said only that [u]nder these circumstances, a reasonable finder of fact could conclude either that the property was not so distant as to be beyond the victim's control and protection, or that it was too distant to be in the victim's immediate presence at the time the force was used. ( Hayes, supra, 52 Cal.3d at p. 629.) Here, in contrast to Hayes, Atherton was alive and being forcibly detained throughout the period during which the office and house takings were accomplished. [N]othing in Hayes suggests that criminals may escape robbery convictions simply by luring their victim far enough away from the property to make his control more difficult or the application of force or fear more convenient. ( Webster, supra, 54 Cal.3d at p. 441.) Under these facts, defendant cannot be heard to argue, from a legal standpoint, that Atherton was too far removed from his office and home, when the takings from those premises were accomplished, to take effective physical steps to retain control of his property and prevent defendant and his companions from stealing it. ( Webster, supra, 54 Cal.3d at pp. 440-442; People v. Ramos, supra, 30 Cal.3d 553; People v. Lavender, supra, 137 Cal. App. at p. 591; People v. Gordon, supra, 136 Cal. App.3d 519; see also People v. Prieto (1993) 15 Cal. App.4th 210, 214 [18 Cal. Rptr.2d 761].) We conclude that, given the facts, the distances involved in the office and home takings (35 to 80 feet, and around the corner of the same block) do not, as a matter of law, violate the standards defining immediate presence that we adopted for California robbery prosecutions in Hayes, supra, 52 Cal.3d 577. (See also Webster, supra, 54 Cal.3d at pp. 440-441 [reaching similar conclusion].)