Miller v. Superior Court
8 Cal. Rptr. 3d 872 (2004)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A theft constitutes a robbery if the perpetrator uses force or fear to retain the stolen property when confronted by the victim during the asportation (escape) phase, which satisfies the element of a taking from the victim's 'immediate presence'.
Facts:
- Jose Higareda entered a public restroom stall and hung his pants, containing his wallet, phone, and keys, on a hook inside the door.
- While Higareda was changing, Miller entered the restroom and occupied the stall directly across from him.
- Higareda finished changing and left the restroom, inadvertently leaving his pants behind.
- After taking a few steps, Higareda realized his mistake, returned to the restroom, and discovered his pants were missing from the stall.
- Higareda became suspicious of Miller after hearing the sound of a Velcro fastener, similar to his wallet's, coming from Miller's stall.
- Higareda and his friend, Dennis O'Brien, confronted Miller and blocked his exit from the restroom.
- Miller charged at Higareda and O'Brien, pushing and shoving them in an attempt to escape with the stolen property.
- After a physical scuffle, O'Brien subdued Miller, and Higareda's pants and empty wallet were later found in the stall Miller had occupied.
Procedural Posture:
- The district attorney charged Miller with robbery and possession of a controlled substance.
- Following a preliminary hearing, a magistrate held Miller to answer to both charges.
- Miller filed a motion to dismiss the robbery charge in the superior court, arguing the evidence did not establish a taking from the victim's immediate presence.
- The superior court denied Miller's motion to dismiss.
- Miller filed a petition for a writ of prohibition in the Court of Appeal to challenge the superior court's denial.
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 use of force to retain stolen property against a victim who confronts the thief during the escape satisfy the 'immediate presence' requirement for a robbery charge, even if the victim was not physically present at the moment the property was first taken?
Opinions:
Majority - McIntyre, J.
Yes, the immediate presence requirement is met. A robbery is not complete at the moment the property is initially taken; it includes the asportation or escape. When a perpetrator uses force or fear to retain stolen property against a victim who confronts them during this escape phase, the taking is considered to be from the victim's immediate presence. Citing 'People v. Estes', the court reasoned that by preventing the victim from regaining control over the merchandise through force, the defendant is held to have taken the property as if the victim had actual possession in the first instance. The law has evolved to recognize that the elements of force and immediate presence can be satisfied after the initial gaining of possession, during the perpetrator's flight to a place of temporary safety.
Dissenting - McDonald, J.
No, the immediate presence requirement is not met. Robbery requires the taking of property from the victim's person or immediate presence, which is a spatial requirement related to the moment of 'gaining possession,' not the 'carrying away.' The majority opinion improperly transforms robbery from a crime of taking into a crime of retaining. Citing 'People v. Cooper', the dissent argues that the 'immediate presence' element applies to where the property is at the moment it is taken. Because Higareda was outside the restroom when Miller gained possession of the pants, this essential element of robbery is absent. Miller may be guilty of theft and assault, but not robbery as defined by statute and Supreme Court precedent.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the 'Estes robbery' doctrine, which broadens the definition of robbery by extending its temporal scope. The court affirmed that the elements of force and immediate presence need not occur simultaneously with the initial caption of the property. This precedent makes it easier for prosecutors to elevate a charge from larceny (theft) to robbery if any force is used during the escape, significantly blurring the traditional line between the two offenses. The ruling impacts how future cases involving shoplifting or theft are charged when a confrontation occurs after the property has been taken.
