State v. Hill
1992 WL 86242, 1992 La. App. LEXIS 1260, 598 So.2d 1269 (1992)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The element of 'force' required for a simple robbery conviction can be established by the act of snatching property from a victim's hand in a face-to-face confrontation, combined with a subsequent physical act, such as a slap, used to overcome the victim's attempt to retrieve the property.
Facts:
- On October 27, 1990, 67-year-old John Brooks was sitting on a porch when his friend gave him two five-dollar bills as a birthday present.
- Sharon C. Hill, an acquaintance of Brooks, witnessed the exchange.
- Hill approached Brooks, stated it was her birthday, and asked for a present.
- When Brooks replied that he had nothing to give her, Hill snatched the two five-dollar bills from his hand.
- Brooks asked for his money back and made a motion to retrieve it.
- Hill refused to return the money, slapped Brooks, and acted as if she were putting the money in her bra.
- Immediately afterward, a man named 'Sam' approached with a gun, accused Brooks of taking money from Hill, and threatened him.
Procedural Posture:
- The State of Louisiana charged Sharon C. Hill by bill of information with armed robbery.
- Hill pleaded not guilty and was tried by a jury in the trial court.
- The jury found Hill guilty of the lesser included offense of simple robbery.
- The trial court sentenced Hill to serve one year at hard labor.
- Hill, as appellant, appealed her conviction to the Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit, arguing that the evidence presented by the State of Louisiana, the appellee, was insufficient to support the conviction.
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 snatching money from a victim's hand and slapping the victim when they attempt to retrieve it constitute sufficient 'force or intimidation' to support a conviction for simple robbery under Louisiana law?
Opinions:
Majority - Armstrong, Judge
Yes, snatching money from a victim's hand and slapping the victim during their attempt to retrieve it constitutes sufficient 'force or intimidation' for a simple robbery conviction. The court reasoned that robbery is an offense against the person, distinguished from theft by the increased risk of danger to human life when a taking is opposed by the victim. The 'force' element does not require significant violence; here, the combination of snatching the money in a direct confrontation and then slapping the victim to thwart his attempt to reclaim it was sufficient. The statute requires force OR intimidation, and the court found the element of force was met by these actions.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the threshold for the 'force' element in simple robbery, establishing that it does not require extreme violence or the use of a weapon. By focusing on the combination of a snatching and a subsequent minor physical act to overcome resistance, the court reinforces the distinction between robbery as a crime against the person and theft as a crime against property. This precedent lowers the bar for prosecutors in proving force, making it easier to secure robbery convictions in cases involving purse-snatchings or similar takings where the victim offers immediate resistance that is met with even minimal physical opposition.
