State v. Holmes
317 Mo. 9, 58 A.L.R. 652, 295 S.W. 71 (1927)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
To constitute robbery, the use of violence or fear must precede or be contemporaneous with the physical taking of the property; force or fear used merely to retain possession of property already acquired without force or to escape does not elevate the crime from larceny to robbery.
Facts:
- S.H. Newell and his wife advertised diamonds for sale from their home in Kansas City.
- Two men, one identified as the appellant, visited the Newell home to inspect the diamonds but did not purchase them.
- Approximately one week later, the appellant returned alone and was admitted by Mrs. Newell while her husband was absent.
- The appellant asked to see the diamonds again, and Mrs. Newell handed them to him for his inspection.
- He then asked for a glass of water to test the diamonds, and Mrs. Newell went to the kitchen, leaving the diamonds in the appellant's hands.
- The appellant followed her to the kitchen, drew a revolver, and forced her and her baby into the basement.
- After locking the basement door, the appellant escaped with the diamonds, which were valued at approximately $400.
Procedural Posture:
- The appellant was charged with robbery in the first degree in a Missouri trial court.
- A jury convicted the appellant of the charge.
- The trial court sentenced the appellant to a term of ten years in the penitentiary.
- The appellant filed motions for a new trial and in arrest of judgment, arguing the evidence established larceny, not robbery.
- The appellant (appellant) appealed his conviction to the appellate court, with the State as 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 defendant commit the crime of robbery if he gains physical possession of property by trickery and only subsequently uses force or fear to retain the property and effectuate his escape?
Opinions:
Majority - Author Not Stated
No. A defendant does not commit robbery if the force or fear is used only after the taking is complete. The Missouri robbery statute requires that the taking of property be accomplished by violence or by putting the victim in fear. In this case, the 'taking,' or manucaption, occurred when Mrs. Newell voluntarily handed the diamonds to the appellant. The appellant had already acquired physical possession of the property before he drew his revolver. The subsequent use of force was not to take the property, but rather to retain possession and escape. The court cited numerous authorities and cases from other jurisdictions, such as Thomas v. State, to support the principle that violence or intimidation must precede or be contemporaneous with the taking. Therefore, the appellant's crime was grand larceny, not robbery.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies a strict temporal requirement for the element of force in the crime of robbery. It clarifies that the force must be the mechanism for the taking itself, not merely an act to facilitate escape or retention after a non-forcible taking has occurred. This distinction is critical, as it prevents the escalation of a larceny charge to the more serious felony of robbery in situations where a thief initially acquires property by stealth or trickery and only later resorts to violence. The ruling establishes a bright-line test that requires courts to closely examine the sequence of events, potentially narrowing the scope of what constitutes robbery in future cases.
