Court Opinion

ID: 9678428
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 06:19:36.287031+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:04.505746
License: Public Domain

SPAIN, Justice,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I concur in those portions of the Majority Opinion which affirm the first-degree robbery conviction as to one count and which find no error in the trial court’s refusal to accept the jury’s recommendation as to concurrent sentencing.
I nevertheless dissent from the reversal of the convictions of first-degree robbery on the remaining four counts and the sentences set thereon by the trial court.
In my opinion, the circumstances attending the holdups by Swain of the store clerks in all five of these robberies were sufficient to sustain the first-degree robbery verdicts of the jury. Under both Merritt v. Commonwealth, Ky., 386 S.W.2d 727 (1965), and its progeny, Travis v. Commonwealth, 457 S.W.2d 481 (1970), cited by the Majority, this Court focused more on the perception of the victim than on the actuality of whether the robber was, in fact, armed with a deadly weapon. As said in Merritt, supra, at p. 729:
Any object that is intended by its user to convince the victim that it is a pistol or other deadly weapon and does so convince him is one. (Emphasis in original.)
Moreover, the intent of the robber in this regard may be inferred from the act itself and from the circumstances surrounding it. Stevens v. Commonwealth, Ky., 462 S.W.2d. 182, 184 (1970).
Under the tests set out above, I have no doubt that Swain intended for each store clerk to believe that he was armed with the .32 caliber pistol which was, in fact, found in his possession when he was arrested later. Nor do I have any doubt that each clerk so believed.
Clerk Quinn testified that she saw the revolver at the time of the Chevron robbery and positively identified the weapon during cross-examination. (This was the only robbery conviction affirmed by the Majority.)
Clerk Sutphin testified that when the robber entered the Dairy Mart on Mt. Tabor Road he mumbled, “Gun. Money.” She didn’t fully understand the man so he repeated, “I have a gun and I want your money.” The man kept his right hand in his jacket pocket indicating he had a gun. Believing the robber had a gun, she gave him $283.
Clerk McLean testified the robber entered his Minit Mart on Squires Road, walked straight to the counter and demanded money. The robber repeated his demand, keeping one hand in his pocket at all times. McLean thought the man had a weapon and he didn’t *350want to take any chances, so he gave the man $81.
Clerk Bowman testified that the robber approached the counter of the Dairy Mart on Richmond Road. The man put his hand under his shirt and into the waistband of his pants as he was telling Bowman to empty both registers. Bowman thought the man had a gun. He nevertheless told the robber that there was a security guard in the rear of the store, whereupon the robber left without getting any money.
Finally, Clerk Faulkner testified the robber entered the Dairy Mart on Alexandria Drive and ordered him to empty both registers. The man kept his arm under his coat and across his chest throughout the robbery. Faulkner was certain the robber had a gun, and gave him about $400.
Although none of the last four clerks actually saw or felt Swain’s pistol, each believed he had one. Swain on each of these occasions either in fact had the pistol in his hand under his shirt (we know he had possession of one when arrested), or he kept his hand or arm under his shirt or coat or in a pocket intending that the clerks would believe he was armed. In either event, I believe Swain was properly convicted of first-degree robbery on all five counts.
WINTERSHEIMER, J., joins.