Crocker v. State
272 So.2d 664 (1973)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
To sustain a conviction for robbery, the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the taking of property was effectuated through the use of force or by putting the victim in fear. A stealthy taking of property from the victim's presence, without the use of force or intimidation, constitutes larceny, not robbery.
Facts:
- George Leon Crocker visited Jesse S. McKenzie at his home on the morning of June 26, 1971.
- The two men had coffee, then went to a store where they consumed beer and whiskey.
- Upon returning to McKenzie's home, McKenzie changed his clothes, removing his coveralls which contained his billfold with $500.
- McKenzie placed the coveralls, with the billfold inside, on his bed.
- Crocker took the billfold from the coveralls, removed the $500, placed the billfold back, and left the residence.
- McKenzie testified that Crocker did not use any force, violence, or fear to obtain the money.
- McKenzie did not realize his money was missing until approximately an hour after Crocker had departed.
Procedural Posture:
- George Leon Crocker was indicted for the crime of robbery in the Circuit Court of Neshoba County, a state trial court.
- At trial, after the prosecution presented its evidence, Crocker's attorney moved for a directed verdict, which the trial court denied.
- The case was submitted to the jury on the single charge of robbery.
- The jury returned a verdict finding Crocker guilty of robbery.
- The trial court sentenced Crocker to serve a term of ten years in the State Penitentiary.
- Crocker (appellant) appealed his conviction and sentence to the Supreme Court of Mississippi.
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 the act of taking money from a wallet located in an article of clothing not being worn by the owner, without using any force, violence, or putting the owner in fear, constitute the crime of robbery?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Inzer
No. The act of taking money from a wallet without the use of force or putting the owner in fear does not constitute robbery. The crime of robbery has three essential elements: (1) felonious intent, (2) force or putting in fear as a means of effectuating the intent, and (3) by that means, taking and carrying away the property of another from his person or in his presence. The State's own witness, McKenzie, explicitly testified that no force, violence, or fear was used. Because the prosecution failed to prove the second essential element of the crime, the conviction for robbery cannot stand. The Court further held that it could not simply substitute a conviction for the lesser included offense of grand larceny because the trial court had only submitted the charge of robbery to the jury for consideration.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the strict elemental requirements for the crime of robbery, clearly distinguishing it from larceny. It underscores that robbery is fundamentally a crime against the person, characterized by violence or intimidation, whereas larceny is a crime against property. The case serves as a crucial precedent for prosecutors, cautioning them against overcharging when the evidence cannot support the element of force or fear. It also clarifies that an appellate court will not cure a failure of proof at trial by convicting a defendant of a lesser included offense that the jury was never asked to consider.
