Court Opinion

ID: 9700402
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 21:26:30.305961+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:21:08.667087
License: Public Domain

*714SCHUDSON, J.
(dissenting).
The majority notes that in Berry v. State, 90 Wis. 2d 316, 280 N.W.2d 204 (1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 1020 (1980), the supreme court declared that "[t]he asportation requirement should be considered in light of the statute's general purpose to proscribe the exercise of unauthorized control over the movable property of another." Id. at 330, 280 N.W.2d at 211. The majority reasonably concludes that although Berry was referring to the theft statute, "this consideration should also apply to the asportation element of the armed robbery statute." Majority op. at 711.1 agree. Therefore, I also would suggest that we consider the next sentence of Berry." 'Carrying away' must be given a practical, common-sense construction." Berry, 90 Wis. 2d at 330, 280 N.W.2d at 211.
Applying a "common-sense construction," I conclude that where an armed assailant forces an owner out of his or her car and takes control of the car, the assailant has committed armed robbery. As Sancho Panza once explained, "Whether the stone hits the pitcher or the pitcher hits the stone, it's going to be bad for the pitcher." IRVING JACOBSON, A Little Gossip, on Man OF La Mancha (Capp Records, Inc. 1966). Similarly, whether an armed robber takes the property away from the victim, or forces the victim to take himself or herself away from the property, it's going to be bad for the victim.
Accordingly, I respectfully dissent.