Opinion ID: 2637623
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Erroneous Instruction Regarding Completion of a Robbery

Text: The trial court instructed the jury with the fifth edition version (1988) of CALJIC No. 9.44. The instruction stated in relevant part that: A robbery is still in progress after the original taking of physical possession of the stolen property while the perpetrator is in possession of the stolen property and fleeing in an attempt to escape. [¶] A robbery is complete when the perpetrator has eluded any pursuers, has reached a place of temporary safety, and is in unchallenged possession of the stolen property after having effected an escape with such property. As the People concede, the instruction was erroneous because it could have misled the jury into believing that commission of a robbery continues during the escape to a place of temporary safety even if the loot is not being carried away contemporaneously. ( People v. Cooper (1991) 53 Cal.3d 1158, 1170, 282 Cal.Rptr. 450, 811 P.2d 742.) Assuming the instructional error affected an element of the offense (see id. at p. 1171, 282 Cal.Rptr. 450, 811 P.2d 742), it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. In this case, defendant, Sorian, and Lopez simultaneously robbed or attempted to rob three separate victims and then drove off with the loot together. Even though Lopez did leave the car at some point and may have left with some of the loot, the initial act of carrying away the loot to a place of temporary safety did in fact coincide with the escape. ( Ibid. ) On these facts, the jury undoubtedly found that defendant formed the intent to facilitate or encourage the commission of the robberies prior to or during the act of carrying away the loot to a place of temporary safety. ( Ibid. ) Accordingly, the instructional error does not warrant the reversal of any of defendant's convictions.