Commonwealth v. Brown
506 Pa. 169, 484 A.2d 738 (1984)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Any amount of force applied to a person while committing a theft, even the slight force required to snatch a purse from a victim's arm, is sufficient to constitute 'force however slight' and elevate the crime from theft to robbery under 18 Pa.C.S. § 3701(a)(1)(v).
Facts:
- The victim cashed a check for $221.00 and placed the money in her purse.
- She then visited a doctor in a nearby clinic.
- As the victim left the doctor's office, she heard running steps approaching from behind her.
- Gregory Brown grabbed the purse that was slung over the victim's arm.
- The victim saw Brown run away with her purse.
- Immediately after the taking, the victim began screaming.
Procedural Posture:
- Gregory Brown, a minor, was arrested and charged under a juvenile petition with Robbery, Theft, and Receiving Stolen Property.
- The Philadelphia County Common Pleas Court certified Brown to stand trial as an adult.
- In the adult criminal division, Brown's motion to suppress evidence was denied by the trial court judge.
- Following a bench trial, the trial court found Brown guilty of Robbery as a Third Degree Felony and sentenced him to one and one-half to five years of confinement.
- Brown (appellant) appealed to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania.
- The Superior Court (appellee was the Commonwealth) affirmed the trial court's judgment.
- Brown then appealed the Superior Court's decision to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does snatching a purse from a victim's arm, without any additional struggle, injury, or threat, constitute the 'force however slight' required to support a conviction for robbery under 18 Pa.C.S. § 3701(a)(1)(v)?
Opinions:
Majority - Papadakos, J.
Yes, snatching a purse from a victim's arm constitutes the 'force however slight' required for a robbery conviction. The court reasoned that the legislature, by adding subsection (v) to the robbery statute, reinstated the common law standard where any amount of force is sufficient. This force can be actual, applied to the body, and the degree is immaterial as long as it is enough to separate the property from the victim. The court distinguished this act from stealthy theft like pickpocketing, where the victim is unaware. A forcible snatching, where the victim is aware of the taking, creates a risk of reflexive action and potential injury, which is the greater harm the robbery statute is designed to prevent. The act of taking the purse from the victim's arm was a 'harmful touching' with sufficient force to compel her to part with her property.
Dissenting - Zappala, J.
No, the evidence was insufficient to establish the force required for robbery. The dissent argues that the record is devoid of any evidence of force, and the majority improperly infers force simply from the fact that the purse was on the victim's arm. This reasoning, the dissent contends, effectively and incorrectly concludes that any taking from a person is robbery per se. The evidence did not show a struggle, a wrenching motion, or resistance during the taking; the victim's screaming occurred after the fact. The dissent accuses the majority of creating facts to compensate for the prosecution's failure to present sufficient evidence of the force element at trial, and argues the conviction should be reduced to theft.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the low threshold for the 'force' element in Pennsylvania's third-degree robbery statute. By equating the physical act of snatching property from a person's body with the requisite force, the court broadens the scope of acts that qualify as robbery. This solidifies the distinction between robbery and surreptitious theft (larceny/pickpocketing) based on the victim's awareness and the inherent potential for violence in any non-stealthy taking from a person. The ruling provides a clear precedent for prosecutors in similar 'snatch-and-run' cases, making it easier to secure robbery convictions without needing to prove a struggle, injury, or verbal threat.
Unlock the full brief for Commonwealth v. Brown