Opinion ID: 2534434
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Sufficiency of evidence of armed robbery

Text: ¶ 53 Anderson argues that there was insufficient evidence to support his armed robbery conviction. Acquittal is required if there is no substantial evidence to warrant a conviction. Ariz. R.Crim. P. 20(a); State v. Lee, 189 Ariz. 608, 615, 944 P.2d 1222, 1229 (1997). ¶ 54 A robbery occurs when, [i]n the course of taking any property of another from his person or immediate presence and against his will, such person threatens or uses force against any person with intent either to coerce surrender of property or to prevent resistance to such person taking or retaining property. A.R.S. § 13-1902(A) (1989). An armed robbery occurs when, during a robbery, the defendant or an accomplice is armed with, uses, or threatens to use a deadly weapon. A.R.S. § 13-1904(A) (1989). A defendant need not personally use or threaten to use the deadly weapon if an accomplice does so. Id.; State v. McNair, 141 Ariz. 475, 479, 687 P.2d 1230, 1234 (1984). ¶ 55 Anderson contends that the State failed to prove that force was used to effectuate a taking. He claims the evidence shows at most that force was used at some point and that a taking later occurred. This Court has held that [w]hen the use of force and the taking of property are not contemporaneous... there is not a robbery. State v. Comer, 165 Ariz. 413, 420, 799 P.2d 333, 340 (1990) (quoting State v. Lopez, 158 Ariz. 258, 264, 762 P.2d 545, 551 (1988)). However, a robbery may also be established when the use of force precedes the actual taking of property, so long as the use of force is accompanied with the intent to take another's property. Id. at 421, 799 P.2d at 341. If the intent to commit robbery coexists with the use of force, there is a robbery. Id. at 420, 799 P.2d at 340. ¶ 56 Anderson also challenged the sufficiency of the evidence of armed robbery in his first appeal. Anderson I, 197 Ariz. at 324 ¶ 25, 4 P.3d at 379. We determined that [f]rom the evidence presented at trial, a reasonable juror could certainly conclude that [Anderson] and Poyson planned to steal the truck and some money before the murders were committed. Id. at 325 ¶ 28, 4 P.3d at 380. We therefore remanded the armed robbery charge for retrial. Id. ¶ 57 Anderson now raises precisely the same argument he did in the previous appeal: he claims the State provided no evidence of intent to steal while using force, as distinguished from a decision to steal made after the victims were dead. We once again reject the argument. Substantial evidence was presented at the retrial that Anderson killed Wear to steal his pickup and killed Delahunt and Kagen in an effort to avoid getting caught. [11] Both Anderson and Lane admitted plans to steal the truck. Anderson admitted searching Wear's body for the pickup keys immediately after Wear was killed. ¶ 58 We found in Anderson I that similar evidence supported the conclusion that the murders were premeditated and taking Wear's truck was the object to be gained. 197 Ariz. at 325 ¶ 28, 4 P.3d at 380. No different conclusion can be reached here. If anything, the evidence at Anderson's second trial was stronger because Lane testified at the second trial but not the first. As we noted in Anderson I, while a jury could conceivably have concluded that Anderson's intent to take the victims' property arose only after each victim was dead, the evidence is more than sufficient to support a contrary conclusion. Id. at 325 ¶ 28, 4 P.3d at 380.