Court Opinion

ID: 9788490
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 00:55:15.544439+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:36:58.462534
License: Public Domain

ALLEGRUCCI, J.,
dissenting: I respectfully dissent from the majority’s holding that there was sufficient competent evidence to support the defendant’s conviction of robbery. I specifically reject the majority’s rationale that the focus is the victim’s point of view.
The majority ignores the language of K.S.A. 21-3426, which requires the taking of property from another to be “by force or by threat of bodily harm to any person.” The majority focuses on the victim’s subjective reaction rather than the defendant’s conduct. *35In so doing, the majority transforms the request by the defendant — “Give me your keys” — into a threat of bodily harm.
I find it interesting that the majority finds no case “precisely on point” but relies on cases that clearly are distinguishable from the present case. U.S. v. Mitchell, 113 F.3d 1528 (10th Cir. 1997), cert. denied 522 U.S. 1063 (1998), is a federal case construing the federal offense of bank robbery by intimidation in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a) (1994). The court stated that the issue was “whether the evidence is sufficient to support a finding of intimidation in the context of a bank robbery.” 113 F.3d at 1531. Intimidation is not an element of the offense of robbery under K.S.A. 21-3426. Both the offense and setting are different than those in the present case. Mitchell approached the bank teller, who was alone in the bank, and said, “this is a holdup” and “get back.” 113 F.3d at 1531. The court concluded that
“Mitchell’s conduct was ‘aggressive behavior which very well could have been considered as intimidating by the jury.’ Slater, 692 F.2d at 109. Ms. Muller testified that Mitchell’s tone was serious and that she felt threatened by his actions. After Mitchell took the money, he instructed Ms. Muller to go with him. Ms. Muller complied. As they walked toward the back door of the bank, Mitchell ‘yanked’ the phone out of the wall. Once outside, Mitchell ordered Ms. Muller to go back into the bank. She again complied. Ms. Muller testified that because she thought Mitchell might come back inside, she locked the back door and left through tlie front of the bank to call the police. Under diese circumstances, there was ample evidence supporting the element of intimidation.” 113 F.3d at 1531.
State v. Davis, 227 Kan. 174, 605 P.2d 572 (1980), and State v. Robertson, 225 Kan. 572, 592 P.2d 460 (1979), are aggravated robbery cases and dealt with sufficiency of evidence as to whether the defendant was armed. Both involved robbery of a convenience store. Neither case is on point.
Goodwine v. State, 764 P.2d 680 (Wyo. 1988), is on point. Good-wine suffered from a severe neurological deficiency which affected his speech and gait. He entered the lobby of a motel and became aggravated when the clerk could not understand him. He proceeded to get louder and more agitated. He put his hand in his pocket, and the clerk thought he had a gun. He walked around the counter, and the clerk became very frightened that he was going *36to take the cash from the cash register. She ran to the back room and locked the door. She called the police, then peeked out the door and observed Goodwine taking cash out of the cash register. Under Wyoming robbery statutes, there must be a theft where defendant “threatens another with or intentionally puts him in fear of immediate bodily injury.” 764 P.2d at 682. The Wyoming Supreme Court reversed the robbery conviction, stating:
“The unique feature of robbery is the victim’s relinquishing property in die face of die immediate possibility of die actor’s execution of the threat to do bodily harm. The language used, ‘threatens’ and ‘intentionally puts in fear,’ contemplates purposeful behavior and focuses upon die accused’s purposeful conduct in conveying, by either express verbal direats or implicit nonverbal physical movement or both, that harm will immediately result if the victim resists the taking. From diis reasoning, we see that it is the accused’s conduct in communicating, eidier verbally or with physical movement or both, the threat of injury that controls, not die victim’s reaction to the accused’s conduct. Our focus on the accused’s purposeful behavior assures that the robbery offense properly identifies diose offenders who pose the risk of bodily harm to which the crime is addressed. If our focus were on the victim’s reaction to an accused’s conduct, we would run the risk that a victim’s subjective overreaction to benign conduct would unjustifiably escalate an offense from a less serious to a more serious crime.
“Focusing on die accused’s purposeful behavior, the court in Mangerich v. State, 93 Nev. 683, 572 P.2d 542 (1977), upheld the accused’s robbery conviction where die accused entered a 7-11 store, said ‘good morning’ to the female sales clerk, placed a ski mask over his head and told the clerk, ‘[g]ive me all the money.’ The court explained, 572 P.2d at 543:
‘Of course, “[t]he courageousness or timidity of the victim is irrelevant; it is the acts of the accused which constitute an intimidation.” United States v. Alsop, 479 F.2d 65, 67 (9th Cir. 1973). The standard is objective. “If the fact attended with circumstances of terror, such threatening word or gesture as in common experience is likely to create an apprehension of danger and induce [another] to part with his property for the safety of his person, it is robbeiy.” Hayden v. State, 91 Nev. 474, 476, 538 P.2d 583, 584 (1975). Certainly, the appearance of a strange man in a ski mask demanding money could cause a reasonable clerk to fear for her safety and relinquish property. Cf. United States v. Robinson, 527 F.2d 1170 (6th Cir. 1975); State v. Stephens, 66 Ariz. 219, 186 P.2d 346 (1947); and Flagler v. State, 198 So. 2d 313 (1967).’
“As pointed out in United States v, Alsop, 479 F.2d 65, 67 (9th Cir. 1973), if the focus were on the victim’s reaction and not on the accused’s conduct, ‘a fearless banker could never be robbed by intimidation.’ Conversely, a timid banker could always be robbed under a benign or ordinary circumstance.” 764 P.2d at 682-83.
*37In Parnell v. State, 389 P.2d 370 (Okla. Crim. 1964), the victim was an 84-year-old woman. The defendant agreed to do certain repairs on her home for $25. After the work was done, the defendant and another man presented the victim with a bill for $600. The victim protested and finally gave them $300. She testified she did so because she was so frightened. She was between the two men who were demanding a shocking amount of money. She was afraid and knew their demand meant something bad because they had promised to do it for $25. In reversing the robbery conviction, the court said:
“While we believe that Mrs. Cora McDonald was in a state of shock and fear after the accused, Rex Parnell, made demand upon her for the sum of $600.00 (a sum grossly in excess of the sum agreed upon), we do not believe that the mere request of a larger amount than was actually due defendant, unaccompanied by some act, gesture, deed or word, threatening unlawful injury, either to the person of Mrs. Cora McDonald or her property, is sufficient to constitute that degree of coercion or intimidation required under our statutes. For as was stated in Davis v. Commonwealth, Ky., 54 S.W. 959; Syllabus #1:
Where a person parts with money upon a mere demand made in a rough, positive voice, with an oath, the taking is not robbery; the menace not being such as to excite reasonable apprehension of danger.’
“It can thus be seen that some act, word, gesture or deed calculated to produce fear or injury to property or person must be established by competent evidence. And it must further appear that as a result of said act, word, gesture or deed the victim was in such a state of fear that he parted with his property.
“For as was stated in United States v. Baker, D.C., 129 F. Supp. 684:
‘Intimidation in the law of robbery means putting in fear, and the fear must arise from the conduct of the accused rather than the mere temperamental timidity of the victim. The fear need not be so great as to result in great terror, panic, or hysteria.’ ” 389 P.2d at 374-75.
Here, defendant asked Brown for the keys in a normal voice. He did not threaten her or raise his voice. They were in a public parking area. It was not yet dark, and she was with her boyfriend. Brown testified the defendant was black and had an “afro” hair style. He was not a big man, only a couple of inches taller than her 5-feet 4-inch height, and he weighed approximately 145 lbs. Brown’s boyfriend was 5 feet 10 inches tall and weighed 205 lbs. He testified that the two men in the car were also black. He was not frightened *38and the whole thing “just [made] me mad.” He stated that he had mouthed off to the defendant. The only response from defendant was, “You’re just messing with me because I’m a nigger.”
Brown had made up her mind that if a stranger ever asked her for something, she would give it to him if she felt threatened. She obviously was scared, frightened, and intimidated simply by the defendant’s presence. She decided to give up the keys because she did not want “any kind of a problem.” She did not have to ignore the defendant’s request to determine if her fear was warranted. However, her decision did not convert a theft into a robbery. It was the defendant’s conduct that controls, not Brown’s reaction to the conduct. There was no express verbal threat or nonverbal physical movement by the defendant that could reasonably be construed as a threat of bodily harm. The test is objective and focuses on the conduct of the defendant. Was the conduct of the defendant such that in common experience would constitute a threat of bodily harm and would reasonably induce Brown to part with her car keys? As stated by the Court of Appeals, the question is whether being scared and feeling threatened rises to the level of reasonable fear of death or injury. In my view, it did not.
Citing no authority, the majority concludes that it is appropriate to examine the evidence from the victim’s point of view. The majority then proceeds to focus on the subjective view of a timid 18-year-old victim and all but ignores the conduct of the defendant or whether Brown’s perception that the defendant threatened her with immediate bodily harm was a reasonable one. The Court of Appeals reversed the robbery conviction, holding that “there is no basis for concluding that Moore took Brown’s keys by force or by threat of bodily harm.” 26 Kan. App. 2d at 91-92. I would affirm the Court of Appeals.
Six, J., joins in the foregoing dissent.