Court Opinion

ID: 9943787
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-26 14:37:07.676728+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:44:50.413545
License: Public Domain

I agree with the affirmance but find the reasoning used to support the conviction for grand theft under the first count unnecessarily complex.
Quite clearly, the crime of robbery (Pen. Code, § 211) includes within itself the lesser-included crimes of theft and of theft from the person (Pen. Code, §§ 484, 487). Section 211 defines robbery as, ". . . the felonious taking of personal property
in the possession of another, from his person or immediate presence, and against his will, accomplished by means of force or fear." (Italics added.) Section 484 defines theft in part: "Every person who shall feloniously . . . take . . . the personalproperty of another . . . is guilty of theft." (Italics added.) Penal Code section 487 defines grand theft in part as theft"from the person of another." (Italics added.)
It may be seen that the definition of robbery contains three elements: (1) the taking of personal property of another, (2) from his person or *Page 930 
immediate presence, (3) by force or fear. The first element of robbery (felonious taking) standing by itself constitutes the crime of theft. (Pen. Code, § 484.) The first and second elements of robbery (a felonious taking from the person of another) together constitute the crime of grand theft from the person (Pen. Code, § 487, subd. 2). Consequently, a defendant charged with robbery is put on notice that included within the charge of robbery are charges of theft and of theft from the person. If the evidence at trial suggests that these lesser-included offenses might have been committed independently of and without the commission of robbery, the defendant may request, and the judge give, instructions on such lesser-included offenses. (Cf.People v. Covington (1934) 1 Cal.2d 316, 320-321 [34 P.2d 1019], robbery-petty theft; People v. Marshall (1957)48 Cal.2d 394, 398, 406 [309 P.2d 456], robbery-theft; People v.Smith (1968) 268 Cal.App.2d 117, 121 [73 Cal.Rptr. 859], robbery-grand theft person.)
This is precisely what happened here, where the oddity of the events in the gun shop and the divergence of testimony about those events justified the court in granting defendant's request for instructions on grand theft. Under those instructions if the jury returned a guilty verdict on the first count, it had the choice of finding defendant guilty of robbery or guilty of grand theft. After reviewing the evidence the jury chose the latter verdict. This was a proper finding of guilt on an offense necessarily included within the charge of robbery (Pen. Code, §1159), and defendant has no cause for complaint. *Page 931