People v. Flynn
77 Cal. App. 4th 766, 91 Cal. Rptr. 2d 902, 2000 Daily Journal DAR 777 (2000)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The willful use of fear to retain property immediately after it has been taken from an owner constitutes robbery. A theft becomes a robbery if fear is used at any point during the crime's commission, including the period of asportation (carrying away) before the perpetrator has reached a place of temporary safety.
Facts:
- The victim, a five-foot-four-inch woman, was walking past Christopher Flynn and five other men in an area she perceived as gang territory.
- Flynn snatched a bag from the victim's shoulder, pulling her backward.
- The victim attempted to retrieve her bag, but Flynn kept pulling it back from her.
- After gaining possession, Flynn removed a gun and a $5 bill from the bag and displayed them to his companions.
- As the victim backed away, Flynn screamed at her to get away from his car.
- The victim, feeling shocked and afraid of being assaulted by the group, ran home.
Procedural Posture:
- Christopher Flynn was charged with robbery and battery on a police officer in the trial court.
- A jury convicted Flynn of robbery but was unable to reach a verdict on the battery charge, which was subsequently dismissed.
- The trial court found true the allegations of two prior felony convictions.
- The trial court sentenced Flynn to a term of 16 years in state prison.
- Flynn appealed his robbery conviction to the California Court of Appeal, Second District.
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 fear to retain possession of property and prevent its recovery by the victim immediately after the initial taking satisfy the 'force or fear' element required for a robbery conviction, even if no force or fear was used to accomplish the initial taking?
Opinions:
Majority - O'Neill, J.
Yes. The use of fear to retain property immediately after it has been taken constitutes robbery. The court reasoned that robbery is a continuous transaction that includes the 'carrying away' phase and does not conclude until the perpetrator has reached a place of temporary safety. Therefore, the element of 'force or fear' can be satisfied if it is used to prevent the victim from reclaiming the property or to facilitate the perpetrator's escape. Here, although the initial snatching may not have involved sufficient force, Flynn's subsequent actions—being part of an intimidating group, displaying the stolen gun, and screaming at the victim—were calculated to, and did, instill fear. This fear prevented the victim from attempting to regain her property, thereby accomplishing the 'carrying away' element of the robbery.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the 'continuous transaction' doctrine in robbery law, clarifying that the crime is not complete upon the initial seizure of property. It broadens the scope of robbery by establishing that a non-violent theft can escalate into a robbery if the perpetrator employs force or fear to retain the stolen goods or to escape. This precedent gives prosecutors greater latitude in charging purse-snatching and shoplifting cases where the defendant resists or intimidates the victim after the initial taking. Consequently, defendants can no longer argue that the lack of force or fear at the moment of taking precludes a robbery conviction if intimidation was used during the getaway.
