Court Opinion

ID: 9718997
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 07:39:57.244254+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:24:03.950625
License: Public Domain

Mr. PRESIDING JUSTICE STENGEL, dissenting: I disagree with both the reasoning employed and the result reached in this case. The majority concedes that the issue here raised has not been considered by any court of review in this State and that the foreign jurisdictions which have considered the issue are divided. Nevertheless, rather than considering the policies underlying the distinction between theft and robbery, the majority assembles dicta from a number of factually disparate and dissimilar cases and concludes that “Illinois courts favor the majority view and would hold that the force incident to a snatch without more does not include the requisite force required by the [robbery] statute.” I do not believe the decisions cited in the majority opinion support that proposition. Although the cited cases do contain some dicta indicating that force incident to a “snatch” is not sufficient to constitute robbery, those very same cases contain other statements indicating a directly contrary conclusion. For example, the majority cites People v. Campbell (1908), 234 Ill. 391, 84 N.E. 1035, as standing for the proposition that the amount of force involved in a “snatch” is insufficient to support a robbery conviction. Yet, the court in that case stated, “In the absence of active opposition, if the article is so attached to the person or clothes as to create resistance, however slight, or if there be a struggle to keep it, the taking is robbery.” (Emphasis added.) (234 Ill. 391, 393.) This passage supports the State’s contention that use of any amount of force is sufficient to constitute robbery. Similarly, the majority argues that the court in People v. Chambliss (1st Dist. 1966), 69 Ill. App. 2d 459, 217 N.E.2d 422, “implied” that purse snatching does not include sufficient force to charge robbery. Yet, the court in Chambliss quoted with approval the “resistance, however slight” rule as enunciated in Campbell. Even the case most heavily relied upon by the majority, People v. Ryan (1909), 239 Ill. 410, 88 N.E. 170, is obviously distinguishable from the present case. The Ryan court stated that the defendant’s attempt to remove the victim’s tie stud was solely by means of “stealth and adroitness,” a newspaper being cleverly manipulated in such a way as to allow removal of the stud without the victim’s knowledge. In the case at bar, the victim was clearly aware of defendant’s attempt to take her purse. Speed and superior strength were used by the defendant herein to force the victim’s purse from her grasp. My point, however, is not to suggest that these cases indicate that Illinois courts have favored the view that force incident to a “snatch” is sufficient to constitute robbery. Rather, my point is that the question here presented has not been decided by any court in this State, and we are remiss to base our decision on a conglomeration of ambiguous dicta from factually dissimilar cases. Instead, I believe we should look to the policy underlying the distinction between theft and robbery and decide on that basis whether the act here committed should constitute one or the other. The majority seems to believe that the distinction between theft and robbery should be made on a quantitative basis. That is, the majority indicates that there is some magic quantity of force which transforms theft into robbery. I do not think the distinction is properly drawn in this manner. Rather, I believe the distinction should be drawn on the basis of the quality and nature of the defendant’s act. As the Ryan court suggests, we should distinguish between the thief who uses stealth and adroitness to take the victim’s property without his knowledge and the thief who openly confronts his victim and then overpowers the victim’s will by superior strength or speed. This distinction is not intended to reward the more clever criminal, but is intended to punish more severely the criminal who exhibits a willingness to use force which might cause injury to his victim. This distinction is based on simple common sense. As the drafters of the American Law Institute Model Penal Code recognized: “The ordinary citizen feels himself able to guard against surreptitious larceny * * * to some extent, by his own wits or caution. But he abhors * * * [the robber whose] hardihood * * * enables him to carry out his purpose in the presence of his victim and over his opposition.” ALI Model Penal Code §222.1, Comments (Tent. Draft No. 11 1960). In Ryan, the defendant attempted to stealthily remove the victim’s property without disturbing or even being acknowledged by the victim. The court there concluded that the defendant’s act was not of such a nature to constitute robbery, and I would agree. Similarly, in Hall v. People (1898), 171 Ill. 540, 49 N.E. 495, the defendant made no attempt to overpower the will of his victim. Rather, the defendant attempted to remove the wallet of the sleeping victim without even causing him to awaken. The nature of the act was not of the type likely to cause injury to the victim, and the robbery conviction was properly reversed. However, in the present case more is involved that a mere stealthy taking where the victim has no present realization of the theft. The defendant here did not attempt to surreptitiously remove the victim’s purse leaving her undisturbed and unaware. On the contrary, the defendant came directly up to his victim, grabbed her purse and by a combination of strength and speed, physically overpowered her, throwing her arm back and forcing her to release her grip on the purse. Unlike the criminal conduct in Ryan and Hall, the conduct here involved defendant’s willingness to use physical force to obtain possession of his victim’s purse against her will. It is conduct which clearly gives rise to the possibility of physical injury to the victim. Moreover, the defendant’s act in this case could be construed as conduct which threatens the imminent use of force. Section 18—1(a) of the Criminal Code of 1961 (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1963, ch. 38, par. 18—1(a)) codified the previous law in Illinois on robbery and no change was intended. “Threatening the imminent use of force” was substituted for “intimidation,” which was used in the old statute, ch. 38, par. 501, prior to 1963, as more accurately reflecting this element of the offense as stated by the court in People v. Bodkin (1922), 304 Ill. 124, 136 N.E. 494. See Ill. Ann. Stat., ch. 38, par. 18—1(a), Committee Comments (Smith-Hurd 1963). The phrase “by threatening the imminent use of force” as used in our statute I believe, by any reasonable interpretation, means that a “snatching” can be robbery if the fact be attended with such circumstances of terror, by word or gesture, as in common experience are likely to create an apprehension of- danger and induce a lady to part with her purse for the safety of her person. In the present case, there is no question that the victim could have been injured by the defendant’s act, nor should there be any doubt she was in fear. Although she was not injured, if the lady had had a slightly better grip on her purse, or if the defendant had slightly misjudged his grab at the purse, we could easily have a victim whose arm was “bruised and lame for several days.” Many purse snatchings, of course, do result in serious injuries to the victim. The majority tells us that we should distinguish between theft and robbery essentially on the “luck of the grab,” the fortuitous circumstance of lack of injury to the victim. I do not agree. I believe the distinction should be based on the defendant’s willingness to use physical force or violence to overcome the victim’s will with the attendant possibility that the victim could be injured by the defendant’s act. In the present case there was sufficient evidence for the jury to determine that defendant’s act was of such a nature, and I see no reason to disturb that determination. Defendant’s conviction for robbery should be affirmed.