Opinion ID: 1393358
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The taking of the victim's car keys, car and wallet

Text: We turn first to the prosecution's theory that defendant was guilty of robbery, either as a direct perpetrator or as an aider and abettor, based on the taking of Atherton's car keys and car, and his wallet and its contents. Defendant was not present when Maple, Valdez F. and Frank P. first accosted Atherton, beat him, obtained his car keys from his person, and forcibly abducted him, taking him in his own car back to Maple's house where defendant waited. Frank P. testified he personally removed the car keys, as well as a beeper which operated the Mazda's car alarm, from Atherton's person at the time he was being forcibly subdued. And, although it was not established with certainty who first removed the wallet from Atherton, it was taken from his person at some point between the time Atherton was first abducted, beaten, and placed in his car by the threesome, and the time at which defendant, while seated next to the victim in the Mazda in front of Maple's house, either was handed the wallet by Valdez F. (according to defendant's own testimony) or directly removed the wallet from Atherton's person himself (the prosecution's theory). At a minimum, the evidence in this case therefore established that the victim's car keys and wallet were removed directly from his person. Significantly, the defense never claimed otherwise. Defense counsel's theory of defense to the robbery charge based on the taking of the victim's car keys, car, and wallet was not that those items had not been taken from the victim's person or immediate presence, but that defendant was not a direct participant, and thus did not share accomplice liability, at this initial stage of the robbery-abduction. Defense counsel urged in closing argument to the jury: Clearly [defendant] did not rob Mr. Atherton personally of any property. (Italics added.) But counsel freely conceded that these items were obviously taken by Shon, Valdez and Frank at the time they first abducted Mr. Atherton. He argued that the most reasonable inference to be drawn from the evidence was that Shon Maple took the wallet from the victim's person, stating: I think the circumstantial evidence is fairly clear that it was Shon who had the best opportunity to remove the wallet. (Italics added.) [8] As we have indicated, the Court of Appeal below expressly concluded that the taking of Atherton's car, and by implication the taking of his wallet and its contents, as a matter of law satisfied the requirement for robbery that the victim's property forcibly be taken from his person or immediate presence. (Pen. Code, § 211.) That conclusion was sound. [9] (3) For purposes of aider-abettor liability, the commission of a robbery continues so long as the property taken is being carried away to a place of temporary safety. ( People v. Cooper (1991) 53 Cal.3d 1158, 1169-1170 [282 Cal. Rptr. 450, 811 P.2d 742].) (4) The act of `taking' begins when the separation of the victim from his or her property occurs, and it continues through the forcible consummation. ( Webster, supra, 54 Cal.3d at p. 442.) (2b) As the prosecutor argued below, at the time defendant directly and knowingly involved himself in the kidnapping and robbery of Atherton, the victim had not been separated from his property, nor had the property been carried away to a place of temporary safety. Indeed, the commission of the robbery was ongoing throughout the period during which all four takings were accomplished because the victim was still being held captive along with his car and other stolen property during that time. (See People v. Stankewitz (1990) 51 Cal.3d 72, 101 [270 Cal. Rptr. 817, 793 P.2d 23]; People v. Fields (1983) 35 Cal.3d 329, 367 [197 Cal. Rptr. 803, 673 P.2d 680].) In summary then, the evidence established at a minimum that Maple, Valdez F., and Frank P. forcibly took personal property from the person of the victim (car keys, car, wallet) when they first accosted, beat, and abducted him in his own car. These takings as a matter of law satisfied the requirement for robbery that the victim's property be taken from his person or immediate presence. The Court of Appeal so found, and nothing presented or argued by the defense at trial undermines this conclusion. Defendant shared aider-abettor liability for the forcible and unlawful takings which constituted an ongoing robbery up to and through the point at which he became directly involved in the crime, a matter that was contested at trial but is no longer at issue in our review of the Court of Appeal's judgment.