Green v. Commonwealth
1922 Va. LEXIS 128, 112 S.E. 562, 133 Va. 695 (1922)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
To constitute robbery, the perpetrator must gain actual dominion and absolute control over the victim's property, even if only momentarily, by force or intimidation; mere loss of possession by the victim due to an assault, without proof of the assailant's control, is insufficient.
Facts:
- On the afternoon of May 14, 1921, Mrs. Lillie Priddy was walking along a private road in Chesterfield County.
- Mrs. Priddy observed Maxie Johnson approaching her from a distance.
- Mrs. Priddy was carrying her pocketbook, which contained a ring, a fountain pen, and money, with its chain wrapped around her wrist.
- As Johnson passed Mrs. Priddy, he spoke to her politely, then struck her across the neck and shoulder with a stick, causing her to lose consciousness briefly.
- Upon regaining consciousness, Mrs. Priddy saw Johnson standing over her, kicked him, and he subsequently ran away.
- After the incident, Mrs. Priddy's pocketbook was found about five or six feet away from her in the road; its chain was broken, but all its contents were still inside.
- Mrs. Priddy did not see Johnson take the pocketbook or ever have it in his possession.
Procedural Posture:
- Maxie Johnson was convicted of robbing Mrs. Lillie Priddy in the Circuit Court of Chesterfield County (trial court).
- Maxie Johnson, as the plaintiff in error (appellant), filed a petition for a writ of error to the Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia, challenging the verdict.
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 evidence that a victim was violently assaulted, resulting in her losing possession of a pocketbook that was later found nearby with a broken chain but all contents intact, establish the 'taking' and 'absolute dominion' elements required for a robbery conviction when the victim did not see the accused take the pocketbook?
Opinions:
Majority - Berks, J.
No, the Commonwealth's evidence did not establish the 'taking' and 'absolute dominion' elements required for a robbery conviction. Robbery is defined as the taking of personal property from a person, or in their presence, against their will, by violence or intimidation, with the intent to permanently deprive the owner. A crucial requirement for this 'taking' is the perpetrator securing dominion or absolute control over the property, even if only momentarily. Mrs. Priddy's testimony, stating her pocketbook 'must have been snatched' because the chain was wrapped around her wrist and later broken, was deemed a mere opinion or conclusion, as she was unconscious during the critical moment and did not actually see Johnson take or possess the pocketbook. The court emphasized that while a violent assault and battery undoubtedly occurred, the evidence failed to show that Johnson ever, for a moment, had the pocketbook in his absolute control, which is necessary to differentiate robbery from other offenses like assault and battery. Citing legal precedent and Lord Hale's example, the court distinguished between an item merely falling from a victim during a struggle and an assailant actually taking possession of it.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the stringent requirements for proving the 'taking' and 'asportation' elements of robbery. It establishes that a violent assault causing a victim to lose possession of property, without direct or sufficiently strong circumstantial evidence that the assailant actually gained dominion and control over that property, is insufficient for a robbery conviction. The ruling distinguishes between the force used to overcome resistance (a component of robbery) and the actual acquisition of the property itself. This decision provides a crucial precedent for prosecutors, requiring them to demonstrate the perpetrator's momentary control over the property, thereby preventing convictions based solely on the victim's loss of property due to an assault. It underscores that while an egregious assault may occur, it must be coupled with the specific intent and action of taking property to constitute robbery.
