Court Opinion

ID: 9687062
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 16:15:14.079964+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:18:24.015715
License: Public Domain

Cavanagh, C.J.
(dissenting). At common law, robbery is aggravated larceny.1 Although, different degrees of robbery were not recognized at common law, 4 Wharton, Criminal Law (14th ed), § 483, p 76, most, if not all, states have enacted legislation, specifying circumstances that, if present, would warrant subjecting a robber to harsher punish*482ment than that imposed for the commission of simple robbery. In applying these statutes, courts must exercise caution to avoid construing circumstances too broadly to assure that the punishment imposed fits the crime.
i
Michigan’s simple or "unarmed robbery” statute provides:
Any person who shall, by force and violence, or by assault or putting in fear, feloniously rob, steal and take from the person of another, or in his presence, any money or other property which may be the subject of larceny, such robber not being armed with a dangerous weapon, shall be guilty of a felony, punishable by imprisonment in the state prison not more than 15 years. [MCL 750.530; MSA 28.798. Emphasis added.]
In contrast, Michigan’s aggravated or "armed robbery” statute provides:
Any person who shall assault another, and shall feloniously rob, steal and take from his person, or in his presence, any money or other property, which may be the subject of larceny, such robber being armed with a dangerous weapon, or any article used or fashioned in a manner to lead the person so assaulted to reasonably believe it to be a dangerous weapon, shall be guilty of a felony, punishable by imprisonment in the state prison for life or for any term of years. [MCL 750.529; MSA 28.797. Emphasis added.]
Even a casual reading of the statutes makes clear that, in Michigan, there are only two circumstances that distinguish unarmed robbery from armed robbery: (1) the actual presence of a dangerous weapon, or (2) the actual presence of "some *483article harmless in itself, but used or fashioned in a manner to induce the reasonable belief that the article is a dangerous weapon.” People v Parker, 417 Mich 556, 565; 339 NW2d 455 (1983), cert den 466 US 962 (1984).
A
Words and threats alone are insufficient to convict a person of aggravated robbery. As one commentary notes:
[Because] intimidation by some means is a necessary ingredient of simple robbery without violence, something additional in the way of dangerousness is needed for aggravated robbery .... [2 LaFave & Scott, Substantive Criminal Law, § 8.11, p 456. Emphasis added.]
The "something additional,” which justifies punishing robbers who are, in fact, armed with dangerous weapons more harshly than unarmed robbers, is the recognition that robbers who are, in fact, armed with dangerous weapons place their victims in "unusually great danger.” State v Steffenhagen, 671 SW2d 344, 346 (Mo App, 1984). (Emphasis added.)2 Because declarations of being armed with a dangerous weapon and threats to use a dangerous weapon during the commission of a robbery do not heighten the actual danger that the victim faces when the robber is, in fact, unarmed, such declarations and threats alone are insufficient to warrant conviction of aggravated robbery. Parker, p 565 (stating that "[w]ords or threats alone can never be dangerous weapons *484because the statute is concerned with weapons, not words”).3
Accordingly, to convict a person of armed robbery under the "being armed” requirement, the prosecution must introduce sufficient evidence for a rational trier of fact to find beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused was actually armed with a dangerous weapon at the time of the robbery. Id. While this burden may be satisfied with circumstantial evidence, most cases that have found sufficient evidence of the presence of a weapon to warrant submission of the issue to the jury involve situations in which: (1) a witness actually observed a weapon, (2) a witness actually observed "a clearly distinguishable portion” of a weapon, or (3) at a minimum, the prosecution has introduced "substantial circumstantial evidence indicating possession of a weapon.”4 Butler v State, 602 So 2d 1303, 1305 (Fla App, 1992). (Emphasis added.)
Likewise, the victim’s subjective belief that a robber is armed with a dangerous weapon is not enough to convict an accused of armed robbery under the "being armed” provision, of an armed robbery statute.5 In Williams v Commonwealth, *485721 SW2d 710 (Ky, 1986), the defendant had robbed a convenience store. To effectuate the robbery, the defendant threatened the clerk "by reaching towards his back pocket and cautioning, 'Do you want your life?’ ” Id. at 711. Although the clerk testified that he saw a bulge in the defendant’s back pocket and believed that "maybe [the defendant] had a weapon or something,” no weapon was seen or found on the defendant when he was arrested shortly thereafter. Id.
Construing its aggravated robbery statute,6 the Williams court rejected the argument that it was not fatal to the prosecution that the defendant threatened the clerk with an unseen weapon or instrument, and found that there was insufficient evidence to submit the case to the jury. In so holding, the court stated:
[The evidence] does not distinguish [first-degree robbery] from second-degree robbery in which the threat of physical force is the gravamen. A response of perceiving danger is quite real under threat; however, such cannot serve to convert something merely speculated upon (a weapon or instrument) into established existence.[7]
To [hold] otherwise places defendant virtually without defense at the caprice of a victim’s subjective evaluation without regard to the actual course of events and could lead to convictions for crimes neither intended nor enacted. Our heritage of justice applies the law to facts. Herein the fact is that although force was threatened, the presence of a weapon or instrument was illusory at best. *486Without an instrument’s [sic] ever being seen, an intimidating threat albeit coupled with a menacing gesture cannot suffice to meet the standard necessary for a first-degree robbery conviction.[8] [Id. at 712.]
Before being amended, Wisconsin’s robbery statute contained an aggravated robbery provision that was very similar to the "being armed” provision of the Michigan armed robbery statute.9 As a result, Wisconsin cases deciding the existence of sufficient evidence to warrant conviction under this former statute are useful in determining the proper application of Michigan’s "being armed” provision. One case is McKissick v State, 78 Wis 2d 176, 178; 254 NW2d 218 (1977),10 in which the Wisconsin Supreme Court found insufficient evi*487dence to warrant submission of the armed robbery issue to the jury on these facts:
[The defendant approached a restaurant employee,] holding his right hand in his pocket, and said to her, "This is a stick up. ... I have a gun in my pocket.” As he spoke these words, the bulge in his pocket appeared to be pointed at her. [The employee] never saw the gun which the defendant professed that he had in his pocket, but she gave the defendant $96.
In reaching its decision, the McKissick court stated:
While it is rather clear in the instant case that the defendant at least pretended to be armed, we specifically held in Dickenson [v State, 75 Wis 2d 47; 248 NW2d 447 (1977)11] that a "robbery committed by pretense of being armed” does not constitute armed robbery under the [former] Wisconsin statutes.
. . . There was no proof of the essential element, that the defendant was in fact armed at the time he robbed [the restaurant]. [McKissick, supra at 179.]
In Dickenson, the Wisconsin Supreme Court reversed a defendant’s armed robbery conviction under the former statute, finding insufficient evidence of the presence of a dangerous weapon on these facts: The defendant entered a restaurant and ordered five hamburgers. When the waiter handed the defendant the food, he stated:
"Give me all the money you have.” She paused, and he said, "Do you know what this is?” She answered, "No.” He had parted the bottom buttons of his shirt to disclose what she thought was the *488butt of a gun protruding from the waistband of his trousers. She glanced around the restaurant to see if anyone was watching. He said, "It’s not worth it, baby.” [She gave him the cash, and he fled but was arrested the next day]. [Id. at 48.]
While the waitress was unable to "positively identify the object in his waistband as a weapon,” she testified that "she inferred that it was, from his statements.” Id. at 48-49. The court held that this was insufficient evidence of the presence of a dangerous weapon to submit the issue to a jury, stating:
In this state it is an element of the crime of armed robbery that the accused be, in fact, armed with a dangerous weapon. If there had been positive testimony from any witnesses that [the defendant] was armed with a gun, th[at would be enough]. . . . Here there is only testimony that [the defendant] had a small black object, which resembled the handle of a gun, in his waistband. There is no testimony from which the jury could infer that it was of sufficient size to be used as a bludgeon.
. . . The strongest evidence in support of a jury’s verdict is that the waitress saw an object in [the defendant’s] waistband which resembled the handle of a gun, and [the defendant] made statements implying that the object was a gun. However, from her recollection of what she saw and heard, the waitress could not testify positively the object was a gun. . . . [Thus, t]he jury could not reach such a conclusion beyond a reasonable doubt, when the only witness with first-hand knowledge who testified on the point was not positive that [the defendant] was armed with a dangerous weapon. [Id. at 49-50.]
The Wisconsin court stated that "the test on review in [that] court is not whether there was *489some evidence to support the jury’s finding, but whether the evidence is sufficient to support a finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id. at 50; accord People v Hampton, 407 Mich 354; 285 NW2d 284 (1979) (rejecting the "any evidence test” for the "sufficiency of the evidence” test).
Just as in Dickenson, the victim in this case had no idea whether the "bulge” was a dangerous weapon. As he stated at trial: "I didn’t know if it was a gun or not. She said that he had a gun and I assumed because there was a bulge it could have been a buckle or anything, and I didn’t know.” To me, it is illogical to suggest that there is sufficient evidence for a jury to reasonably conclude that the accused was, in fact, armed with a dangerous weapon, when the only witness is uncertain whether the accused was, in fact, so armed.
Absent sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to find that the defendant was actually armed with a dangerous weapon at the time of the robbery in question, the prosecution simply had no choice but to proceed under the "article used or fashioned” provision of the armed robbery statute. When viewed in a light most favorable to the prosecution, the only evidence presented was a coassailant’s threat, implying that the defendant was armed with a dangerous weapon, and the victim’s perception of an unexplained "bulge” at the defendant’s waistline. While this evidence surely satisfies the elements required to convict a person of unarmed robbery, which requires only the showing that a larceny was accomplished by force or fear of force, the evidence is insufficient to permit a rational jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was, in fact, armed at the time of the robbery. To hold otherwise, would not only blur the distinction between armed and unarmed robbery, it would also render the "article used or *490fashioned” provision of the armed robbery statute completely unnecessary.
B
As previously noted, the justification for enhancing the punishment for robbers who arm themselves with dangerous weapons is that the victim is subjected to a heightened degree of actual danger. In other words, in such situations, enhanced punishment is justified because the defendant actually has the capacity to use an unusual degree of force that is not present during an unarmed robbery. Conversely, the justification for enhancing the punishment for robbers who arm themselves with an "article” that is "used or fashioned in a manner to lead the person so assaulted to reasonably believe it to be a dangerous weapon,” is an awareness that victims of such robberies are typically placed in an unusual degree of fear. State v Hopson, 122 Wis 2d 395, 403; 362 NW2d 166 (Wis App, 1984); Steffenhagen, supra at 346. Consequently, some states have enacted aggravated robbery statutes that subject robbers to enhanced punishment when they merely threaten the use of a dangerous weapon.12
Unlike the states that permit conviction for aggravated robbery predicated on "verbal repre*491sentations” of being armed with a dangerous weapon or the "threatened use of a dangerous weapon,” Michigan requires more. Again, while verbal representations and threats to inflict harm, which can only be inflicted by dangerous weapons, may cause a victim to subjectively believe that the person is armed with a dangerous weapon, in Michigan, "[w]ords or threats alone” are not enough.13 Indeed, our statute expressly requires a finding that the accused was, in fact, "armed” with something capable of being used or fashioned in a manner to lead the victim to reasonably believe that it was a dangerous weapon.
New Jersey has a similar aggravated robbery statute, which provides:
Bobbery is a crime of the second degree, except that it is a crime of the first degree if in the course of committing the theft the actor attempts to kill anyone, or purposely inflicts or attempts to inflict serious bodily injury, or is armed with, or uses or threatens the immediate use of a deadly weapon. [NJ Stat Ann 2C:15-lb. Emphasis added.]
New Jersey defines a "deadly weapon” as
any firearm or other weapon, device, instrument, material or substance, whether animate or inanimate, which in the manner it is used or is intended to be used, is known to be capable of producing death or serious bodily injury or which in the manner it is fashioned would lead the *492victim to reasonably believe it to be capable of producing death or serious bodily injury. [NJ Stat Ann 2C:ll-lc. Emphasis added.]
Applying these statutes in State v Hutson, 211 NJ Super 49; 510 A2d 706 (1986), a New Jersey court noted that, while the "subjective belief of the victim [is] relevant,” "there must be some object upon which the victim bases his or her belief, some tangible object which the victim believes to be a deadly weapon.” Id. at 53. Thus, the appellate court in Hutson reversed the defendant’s armed robbery conviction, where the evidence showed that the defendant and another person, while passengers in a cab, demanded money and threatened the use of a gun, a magnum to be precise. Id. at 51. The cab driver said that he turned around and saw one of the men holding a newspaper and that he believed the paper concealed a gun. In reversing the defendant’s conviction of armed robbery, the court stated:
In the instant case no [tangible] object was displayed; no [tangible] object existed. The driver’s belief that a gun was under the newspaper neither converted the paper into a weapon nor eliminated the need for the existence of some object. Construing the criminal statute narrowly, as we must, we find error in the trial judge’s conclusion that a victim’s subjective belief is enough to satisfy a showing of a deadly weapon. Had the Legislature intended a solely subjective standard, it could easily have said so. [Id. at 53. Emphasis in original.]
In affirming the appellate court’s decision in Hutson, the New Jersey Supreme Court stated:
The point is obvious: what is missing in this record is the link between the threat and the *493object viewed by the victim. Had the newspaper been presented to the victim so as to create the reasonable impression that it concealed a dangerous object, the definition of dangerous weapon would have been satisfied. Our disagreement with the Appellate Division is narrow, but critical: to the extent that the opinion of the court below may be read to suggest that a newspaper either fashioned to look like a weapon or held in such a manner as reasonably to lead a victim to believe that it concealed a weapon would not satisfy the statutory requirement of a deadly weapon, it is incorrect. Such evidence, had it surfaced in this case, would indeed have met the statutory definition; but the record as it stands does not generate an inference that defendant had created the reasonable impression that he was concealing a weapon under a newspaper. [107 NJ 222, 228-229; 526 A2d 687 (1987).] ’
The same thing that was missing in Hutson, is also missing in the present case, i.e., there is absolutely no link between the coassailant’s threat and the bulge viewed by the victim. Absent such a link, there is insufficient evidence to permit conviction of this defendant of armed robbery. Consequently, I would agree with Justice Brickley that, on this record, there is insufficient evidence for a rational jury to find that "the defendant used or fashioned an article to induce a belief that he was armed,” ante, p 479, at the time of the robbery.14
*494II
I concur with Justice Brickley’s opinion.

 As one commentator notes:
[C]ommon law . . . robbery consists of larceny plus two aggravating circumstances. A larceny is aggravated and becomes robbery when (1) the property is taken from the person or presence of another, and (2) the taking is accomplished by the use of force or threatened force (or, as sometimes stated, by putting the victim in fear of injury). [4 Wharton, Criminal Law (14th ed), § 469, pp 39-40. Emphasis added.]
In other words, if a person takes property from another without using force or the threat of force, then that person is guilty of larceny. If, however, the person uses force or the threat of force to take property from another, then that person is guilty of robbery.

 See also State v Garza Rodriguez, 164 Ariz 107, 111; 791 P2d 633 (1990) (stating that this element "reflect[s] the policy that the greater punishment is reserved to deter the dangerous person actually capable of inflicting death or serious bodily harm”). (Emphasis added.)

 See also Rodriguez, n 2 supra at 112 (stating that "[bjecause mere words qualify as force sufficient to coerce the surrender of property for the lesser crime of simple robbery, the legislature must have intended to include some element other than mere words in [the statute]”).

 See also n 8.

 As stated in Butler v State, supra at 1305:
[T]o secure a conviction . . . for armed robbery while carrying a "firearm or other deadly weapon” or for armed robbery while carrying a "weapon,” respectively, the state must present evidence which would be legally sufficient to permit a jury to conclude that the defendant actually carried a "firearm,” "other deadly weapon” or a "weapon.” While the state may meet this burden by the presentation of circumstantial evidence, it may not do so by presenting evidence of nothing more than the victim’s subjective belief that the defendant possessed [such items], [Emphasis added.]

 In Kentucky, a person who "[i]s armed with a deadly weapon” or "[u]ses or threatens the immediate use of a dangerous instrument upon any person who is not a participant in the crime commits aggravated robbery.” Ky Rev Stat Ann 515.020.

 See also Ryder v State, 464 So 2d 1324, 1325 (Fla App, 1985) (stating that "[r]obbers commonly merely imply the possession of a weapon in order to bolster their threat,” however, "[t]hat implication cannot amount to proof of the possession”).

 The Williams court stated that its holding conformed with existing case law, "for in each instance . . . the determination depended upon whether a specific item (e.g., a toy pistol, an unloaded pistol with a broken firing pin, a club, a shotgun, a pointed object, a knife) should be characterized as either a deadly weapon or dangerous instrument. In all but one instance the object supporting the first-degree charge was seen.” Id., p 712. In the one instance in which an object was not seen, the victim testified that a sharp instrument had been pressed against his back, which established the presence of something. Thus, the court found that "there simply were no facts to be referred to a jury,” stating:
Herein no object was either seen or felt. At most there was an unidentifiable bulge in Appellant’s hip pocket which the prosecuting witness felt "maybe” was "a weapon or something.” The Commonwealth argues that "[t]he logical inference from the evidence for a reasonable juror was that appellant had an instrument capable of inflicting deadly harm.” This, however, begs the question of whether a mere pocket bulge is sufficient to create a jury issue as to the existence not just of "something” but specifically of a deadly weapon or dangerous instrument. [Id.]

 The former Wisconsin aggravated robbery provision provided that "[wjhoever [commits robbery] while armed with a dangerous weapon is guilty of [aggravated robbery].”

 Superseded by statute; see State v Hopson, 122 Wis 2d 395; 362 NW2d 166 (Wis App, 1984).

 Superseded by statute; see n 10.

E.g., James v State, 405 So 2d 71, 73 (Ala Crim App, 1981) (construing Ala Code 13A-8-41, which provides that "any verbal or other representation by the defendant that he is . . . armed, is prima facie evidence . . . that he was so armed,” "to 'protect the citizen from fear for his or another’s health and safety’ ”); Coley v State, 304 Ark 304, 307; 801 SW2d 647 (1991) (construing Ark Stat Ann 5-12-103 to permit conviction of aggravated robbery where the defendant merely makes a " 'verbal representation’ of being armed with a deadly weapon” for the same reason); State v Witkowski, 143 Wis 2d 216, 218; 420 NW2d 420 (Wis App, 1988) (stating that revised Wis Stat Ann 943.32 permits conviction of aggravated robbery when the victim’s belief that the robber was armed is based merely on the robber’s verbal representations alone).

 Words and threats are the proper subject of unarmed robbery, which is concerned with robbery by intimidation induced by force or fear of force. See n 1. Thus, in my view, to hold that words or threats alone are sufficient to find a person guilty of armed robbery fails to distinguish between the two crimes and places the defendant at risk of being punished for a crime not committed. Accordingly, I disagree with Parker if it is read to suggest that words or threats alone may be sufficient to support a verdict of guilty under Michigan’s armed robbery statute.

 The Missouri case cited by the majority, in support of the proposition that "threats of a killing and the existence of a bulge in the defendant’s pocket were sufficient to prove the threatened use of a dangerous weapon even though the victims never actually saw an instrument,” is clearly distinguishable. Ante, p 470. In State v Mc-Cracken, 829 SW2d 634 (Mo App, 1992), although no weapon was displayed, there was testimony that the defendant had a "bulge in his pocket where he had his hand, larger than a bulge from the hand itself.” Id. at 635. (Emphasis added.) Thus, unlike the facts in this case, in McCracken, there was a link between the defendants’ verbal threats to "kill” and the victim’s observation of an unexplained "bulge.”