State v. Conrad
1993 WL 185343, 620 So.2d 366 (1993)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The 'taking' element of robbery is satisfied by the slightest deprivation of property for the slightest period of time. Even momentary possession by the perpetrator, before the victim reclaims the property, is sufficient to constitute a completed taking.
Facts:
- On August 6, 1991, Sharon Kenmure was sitting outside her apartment complex in the evening.
- Joseph Conrad approached Kenmure on a bicycle and demanded her purse.
- When Kenmure refused, Conrad removed a gun from his pants and stated, 'You have no choice.'
- Conrad then grabbed the purse from Kenmure's shoulder and placed the straps between his fingers.
- As Kenmure attempted to retrieve items from the purse, a security guard appeared in the parking lot, distracting Conrad.
- While Conrad was looking at the guard, Kenmure retrieved her purse from him.
- Conrad then fled the scene on his bicycle.
Procedural Posture:
- The Jefferson Parish District Attorney filed a bill of information charging Joseph Conrad with armed robbery and illegal use of a weapon by a convicted felon.
- At his arraignment in the 24th Judicial District Court (trial court), Conrad pled not guilty.
- Following a jury trial, the jury returned a verdict finding Conrad guilty of armed robbery.
- Conrad's counsel filed a Motion for New Trial based on insufficiency of the evidence, which the trial judge denied.
- The trial court sentenced Conrad to forty-nine and one-half years of hard labor.
- A Motion to Reconsider Sentence filed on behalf of Conrad was denied by the trial court.
- Conrad (defendant-appellant) appealed his conviction and sentence to the Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fifth Circuit, with the State of Louisiana as the plaintiff-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 a perpetrator's momentary possession of a victim's purse, which the victim immediately retrieves, satisfy the 'taking' element required for a conviction of armed robbery under LSA-R.S. 14:64?
Opinions:
Majority - Bowes, Judge
Yes. A defendant's momentary possession of a victim's property is sufficient to satisfy the 'taking' element of armed robbery. The court reasoned that Louisiana law, as established in State v. Neal, does not require a permanent or even prolonged deprivation. The 'slightest asportation of anything of value' or 'the slightest deprivation for the slightest period of time' is enough. The victim's testimony that Conrad 'grabbed my purse off my shoulder' and that she 'grabbed my purse back from him' indicates that Conrad did have possession, however briefly. Therefore, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, the State proved the 'taking' element beyond a reasonable doubt, and the crime was a completed armed robbery, not merely an attempt.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the legal principle that the 'taking' element in robbery has a very low threshold in Louisiana. It clarifies that a robbery is complete the instant the perpetrator secures even fleeting control over the victim's property. The ruling makes it more difficult for defendants to argue for a lesser charge of 'attempted robbery' in cases where the victim successfully and immediately recovers their belongings. This precedent solidifies the focus on the perpetrator's act of dispossession, rather than on the duration or ultimate success of that dispossession.
