Court Opinion

ID: 9807021
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 19:43:42.686075+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:20:07.786656
License: Public Domain

FISHER, Associate Judge,
concurring in the judgment:
There is no doubt that Mr. Chau surrendered his wallet to appellants because he feared them. But due to a language barrier, and perhaps nervousness, he was unable to clearly explain what appellants had done to engender that fear or to communicate that this was a robbery. I therefore reluctantly agree that “the government failed to prove the element of ‘violence or putting [a person] in fear.’ ” Opinion for the court at 564.
Of course, appellants did not give the wallet back or try to explain that Mr. Chau had misunderstood the situation. Instead, they walked away together with the wallet, rifling through it in search of valuables, and one of them kept Mr. Chau’s Metro card. However, the government has not asked us to enter judgment on a lesser-included offense. For these reasons, I concur in the judgment.