Court Opinion

ID: 9532955
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 04:26:37.493555+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:28:52.691183
License: Public Domain

Dooley, J.,
concurring. I join in the result and much of the reasoning of the majority. I would, however, interpret the statute in accordance *286with its plain meaning, limiting its applicability to stealing property that is within the actual physical control of the victim. I find the factors used by the majority — whether the thief s conduct was assaultive, whether the victim was aware of the theft, and the risk of violence — to have little relevance to a determination of control. Indeed, it is difficult to discern any difference between the standard employed by the majority and that urged by the dissent. Both seem to look primarily at the risk of confrontation. The only difference is in how the standard applies to the facts of this case.
The wallet in this case was beyond the victim’s actual physical control. I would hold that § 2503 does not apply whether defendant took the wallet surreptitiously or announced he was doing so.