State v. Davis
2012 WL 5377792, 111 So.3d 100, 2012 La.App. 1 Cir. 0386 (2012)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A conviction for simple robbery can be sustained where property is taken from the immediate control of another by use of force or intimidation, even if the victim is not directly threatened or physically harmed, provided the force or intimidation creates an atmosphere of fear directly related to the completion of the crime.
Facts:
- On the evening of September 8, 2009, Brandon Davis, Joel Barrios, and Timothy Lovelace were patrons at the Queen Bee Lounge where Sandra Thompson was the only employee working.
- After Randy Reed announced it was closing time, Timothy Lovelace struck Reed with a pool stick, and Brandon Davis then struck Reed with a bar stool.
- Lovelace proceeded to jump over the bar, attempted to open the cash register, and then, along with Davis and Barrios, took bottles of liquor from the shelves and placed them in Davis’s car.
- Reed managed to exit the lounge, where Davis and Lovelace continued to kick and beat him.
- Ricki Lin Lewis, Thompson's daughter, came out to intervene in the beating, and Lovelace struck her, rendering her unconscious.
- Thompson, having called 911, approached Davis, who was sitting in the driver’s seat of his car, and asked him to return the liquor, but Davis stated he could not.
- Lovelace then approached Thompson from behind and “slung” her, causing her to lose consciousness.
- Davis and Lovelace drove away from the lounge with the stolen liquor in Davis's car, and later continued partying.
Procedural Posture:
- Brandon Davis was charged by bill of information in a Louisiana trial court with aggravated battery (count 1) and armed robbery (count 2).
- Davis pled not guilty to both charges.
- Following a jury trial, Davis was found guilty of the responsive offense of simple battery on count 1.
- Following a jury trial, Davis was found guilty of the responsive offense of simple robbery on count 2.
- Davis filed a motion for postverdict judgment of acquittal in the trial court, which was denied.
- For the simple battery conviction, Davis was sentenced to six months imprisonment.
- For the simple robbery conviction, Davis was sentenced to six years imprisonment at hard labor, with both sentences ordered to run concurrently.
- Davis, as the appellant, appealed his convictions and sentences, designating one assignment of error specifically challenging the sufficiency of evidence for simple robbery, to the Court of Appeal of Louisiana, First Circuit.
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 sufficient evidence exist to convict a defendant of simple robbery when the property taken was in the immediate control of an employee who was intimidated by the defendant's and an accomplice's violent actions against others during the course of the taking, even if the defendant did not personally strike the employee or directly threaten her for the property?
Opinions:
Majority - CARTER, C.J.
Yes, sufficient evidence exists to convict Brandon Davis of simple robbery. The court affirmed the conviction, finding that a rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of simple robbery beyond a reasonable doubt, viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution. First, Sandra Thompson, as the sole employee and acting manager of the lounge, maintained 'immediate control' over the liquor, regardless of her precise physical location, as property is considered taken from a victim's presence even if they are in another room (citing State v. Loyd and State v. Baldwin). Second, the 'force or intimidation' element was satisfied because Thompson witnessed the unprovoked attacks by Lovelace and Davis on Reed, the beating of Lewis, and Lovelace's subsequent attack on her after she confronted Davis, which created an 'atmosphere of fear and intimidation' (citing State v. Quac Tran). The court emphasized that resistance by the victim and the use of physical force by the perpetrator are not necessary to complete a simple robbery. Furthermore, the court clarified that the force or intimidation does not need to occur before or contemporaneous with the taking, but rather 'in the course of completing the crime' (citing State v. Meyers). Davis's liability was also supported by principles of accessory liability, as he was 'concerned in the commission of a crime,' aiding and abetting Lovelace by striking Reed and driving away with the stolen liquor, thus becoming responsible for Lovelace's acts during their 'concerted course of action.'
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the interpretation of 'immediate control' and 'force or intimidation' within simple robbery statutes, confirming that physical proximity to the stolen items or direct physical threats to the victim are not absolute requirements. It establishes that an environment of fear and violence created during a criminal enterprise can fulfill the intimidation element, especially when coupled with principles of accessory liability. The ruling further provides flexibility by stating that the force or intimidation can occur at any point 'in the course of completing the crime,' expanding the temporal scope of when this element can be satisfied for robbery convictions. This precedent makes it easier for prosecutors to secure convictions in scenarios where a defendant's actions contribute to an overall intimidating atmosphere, even if they don't directly confront the victim over the property.
