State v. Curley
123 N.M. 295, 939 P.2d 1103, 1997 NMCA 038 (1997)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
To elevate a larceny to a robbery, the force used must be greater than that necessary to simply remove property from a non-resisting person. When an item is attached to a person, the force must be sufficient to overcome the resistance created by that attachment.
Facts:
- The victim was walking out of a mall with her daughter, carrying her purse on her left side.
- Defendant grabbed the victim's purse and ran away.
- The victim described feeling a "shove" on her left shoulder as Defendant grabbed the purse.
- There was conflicting evidence regarding how the victim was holding the purse; her thumb may have been through the strap or simply resting on the bottom of the purse.
- The purse strap did not break.
- The victim did not testify that she struggled with Defendant or that any part of her body offered resistance to the taking.
- Defendant presented evidence that he was intoxicated and had no memory of the incident.
Procedural Posture:
- The State prosecuted Defendant for robbery in a state trial court.
- At the conclusion of the trial, Defendant's counsel requested that the jury be given instructions on the lesser-included offense of larceny.
- The trial court denied the request to instruct the jury on larceny.
- The jury returned a verdict convicting Defendant of robbery.
- Defendant appealed his conviction to the New Mexico Court of Appeals, arguing the trial court erred by refusing the requested instruction.
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 defendant charged with robbery have a right to a jury instruction on the lesser-included offense of larceny when the evidence could support a finding that the force used was no more than necessary to remove property from a non-resisting victim?
Opinions:
Majority - Pickard, Judge
Yes. A defendant is entitled to a jury instruction on the lesser-included offense of larceny if a reasonable view of the evidence supports the conclusion that the force used was no more than that necessary to remove property from a person who does not resist. Robbery is distinguished from larceny by the use of force directed against the person to overcome resistance. In this case, the jury could have reasonably inferred that the shove was an unintentional touching resulting from Defendant's intoxication and not a deliberate application of force to effectuate the theft. Disregarding the shove, the remaining evidence of Defendant grabbing the purse could be interpreted as using only the minimal force required to take it from a non-resisting victim, which constitutes larceny, not robbery. Because this view of the evidence was reasonable, the trial court erred by refusing to provide the requested larceny instruction.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the legal standard in New Mexico for distinguishing robbery from larceny in 'snatching' cases. By adopting the majority rule, the court emphasizes that the critical element is not merely taking property from a person, but overcoming the victim's resistance through force. This raises the evidentiary standard for prosecutors seeking a robbery conviction in such cases, as they must prove force beyond the simple act of taking. The ruling also underscores the jury's role as the fact-finder, responsible for drawing inferences about intent and the nature of the force used, especially when evidence like intoxication is presented.
