Criminal Law question?

Question

Question on a recent criminal law final, just curious as to the correct answer:

If the defendant goes into a store and puts articles of clothing under his coat and attempts to leave the store, and the security chases after him out of the store. If the defendant pulls out a gun and when the security guard stops he manages to run away, it that robbery?

I said yes, because although the underlying crime was retail theft, the use of force with a weapon bumps it to armed robbery. Is it not because there wasn't intent? Thoughts?

Thanks for the info guys! Part 2 of the question... if there was a defendant in the getaway car, and in the process of running out, the defendant committing the robbery gets killed by an undercover cop, is the defendant responsible for his death? Again I said yes because of the felony-murder rule and since the guy in the getaway car was not in police custody, he was involved in a conspiracy and therefore should be held responsible.

Answer 1

You are correct, once a weapon is produced, it becomes armed robbery. Your answer is right on the mark.

Part II: Yes again, the person was killed during the commission of a crime which the defendant would be responsible for and charged.

Of course, this is from the prosecution standpoint. A whole different set of answers applies to defense. Sorry, haven't been the same since the OJ thing. (wink)

Answer 2

Robbery is traditionally defined as larceny by force or threat of force. The proper intent was formed the second he pulled the gun out and pointed it at the store employee. Underlying crime is not an element in Robbery. The larceny was still taking place at the time. Any physical force or threat used to complete the crime bumps it up to a robbery.

Edit for part 2.
This is a more difficult question. Conspiracy Liability or Pinkerton liability attaches to accomplices when they are committed in furtherance of the conspiracy and they are reasonably foreseeable. One can make the argument that a conspiracy to shoplift it was not reasonably foreseeable that the guy was going to pull a gun on the store clerk. This would require more evidence than you have. Also then if you can attach liability to the conspirator for robbery you would have to them prove him liable under felony murder charges. There are different approaches to felony murder. It was foreseeable to be approached by an under cover officer, and also foreseebale for the shooting. The crime was dangerous so that's covered. However some states will cut off liability when the police officer fired the shot. One approach is under the Agency approach, meaning all conspirators are working as agents in the crime, and people can only be held accountable for crimes committed by other agents of the crime. Under this of course the guy would not be liable. Using the proximity approach the court could rule that the events were so unforeseeable to the robbery that they will be deemed superceeding and cut off liability also.

So in wrap up. First liability is going to be difficult, due to foreseeability (fatal in my opion) then liability for an unrelated 3d. party may be tough too. It's a tough call I hope you explained it well

Answer 3

The crime committed is theft because the use of the gun was only to facilitate his escape but not an act to commit the crime.

In the second case, the defendant is not responsible for the death due to the shooting made by the undercover cop because he has nothing to do with his death. The crime he committed is robbery and the death of the defendant is only an aggravating circumstance.

Answer 4

He didn't pull the gun out just to make the guard go away. He did it to ensure he kept the stolen goods. Therefore the gun aided in the theft. Therefore robbery (armed).



So what happened to the felon? Did he eventually get caught? Will you be prosecuting or defending?

Answer 5

My reaction on your earlier question has no longer something to do with whether or no longer we ought to continuously have open borders or amnesty. I also have a project with all unlawful extraterrestrial beings being huge brushed and linked with rapist and murders. If an unlawful alien is caught they do no longer face penitentiary time only for being right here illegally. they may be detained until they're deported yet that's no longer the comparable as being tried and convicted of a criminal offense. Calling all unlawful extraterrestrial beings felons does no longer something yet demonize them interior the eyes of folk who might get it into their pea brained little minds that it somewhat is their "patriotic accountability" to bypass out and "manage the illegals". it somewhat is already befell. regardless of answer is arrived at to handle the difficulty of unlawful immigration desires to be a humane one. i'm hoping we are able to a minimum of agree on that.

Answer 6

Not armed robbery. The perp did not use force to steal.

Answer 7

armed robbery

Answer 8

No, its not robbery. CCW