State v. Bowers
909 So.2d 1038, 2005 WL 1993432 (2005)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A shoplifting escalates to armed robbery when the perpetrator uses force or intimidation with a dangerous weapon at any point during the commission of the crime, including during the escape, to retain possession of the stolen property or to flee.
Facts:
- Erica M. Bowers entered a JCPenney store and was observed by Calvin Brown, the loss prevention manager, suspiciously selecting several items of clothing.
- Bowers took the items into a fitting room and exited a short time later without the merchandise in plain view, but her purse was 'noticeably bigger'.
- As Bowers and her companion approached the store exit, they saw security and police officers outside and turned back into the store.
- Brown followed Bowers back to a fitting room, where he observed her removing merchandise from her purse.
- When Brown confronted Bowers and instructed her to come with him, Bowers pulled a handgun from her pocket, waved it, and warned Brown, 'You had better move.'
- Brown, feeling intimidated and fearing for his safety, immediately stepped back.
- Police subsequently detained Bowers inside the store and a search of her purse revealed two pairs of blue jeans belonging to the store.
Procedural Posture:
- The State of Louisiana charged Erica M. Bowers by bill of information with armed robbery.
- Following a trial in the state trial court, a jury found Bowers guilty as charged.
- Bowers filed a motion for a new trial, which the trial court denied.
- The trial court sentenced Bowers to serve 30 years imprisonment at hard labor.
- Bowers then filed a motion to reconsider the sentence, which the trial court also denied.
- Bowers (appellant) appealed her conviction and sentence to the Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Second Circuit, against the State of Louisiana (appellee).
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 a dangerous weapon to intimidate a store employee attempting to recover stolen merchandise constitute armed robbery, even if the perpetrator has not yet exited the store?
Opinions:
Majority - Williams, J.
Yes, the use of a dangerous weapon to intimidate a store employee attempting to recover stolen merchandise constitutes armed robbery, even if the perpetrator has not yet exited the store. The offense of armed robbery requires: 1) a taking, 2) of anything of value, 3) from the person or immediate control of another, 4) by use of force or intimidation, 5) while armed with a dangerous weapon. The 'taking' element is satisfied by even the 'slightest asportation' of the property, which occurred when Bowers concealed the jeans in her purse. The merchandise was in the immediate control of Brown, a store employee tasked with its protection. The critical element is that force or intimidation can be applied at any time during the course of the crime to complete the offense. When Bowers used the handgun to threaten Brown to facilitate her escape with the stolen goods, her actions supplied the 'force or intimidation' element, elevating the crime from shoplifting to armed robbery. The jury was entitled to believe Brown's testimony and find that all elements of the offense were proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the temporal scope of a robbery, establishing that the 'taking' is a continuous act that extends through the perpetrator's attempt to escape. The decision solidifies the legal principle that a non-violent property crime like shoplifting can instantly transform into a serious violent felony, armed robbery, the moment a weapon is used to resist apprehension or retain stolen goods. This precedent strengthens the position of prosecutors in cases where suspects escalate a theft by threatening store employees or security, ensuring that the use of a weapon at any stage of the illicit transaction can support a conviction for the more severe offense. Future cases will likely rely on this reasoning to argue that the 'force or intimidation' element of robbery is not confined to the initial moment of acquisition.
