State v. Meyers
620 So. 2d 1160, 1993 WL 239970 (1993)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The element of 'force or intimidation' required for robbery is satisfied when such force or intimidation, directly related to the taking, occurs in the course of completing the crime, including actions taken to retain possession of the property immediately after the taking or to facilitate escape.
Facts:
- A store clerk was working alone at a convenience store.
- The clerk closed the cash register and went into a storage room at the rear of the store to get a dust pan.
- Johnny J. Meyers took money from the cash register.
- Upon hearing the click of the cash register latch, the clerk returned to the register area and found Meyers with his hands in the register.
- When the clerk yelled, Meyers dropped his hands momentarily and then raised one hand holding a "small and black" object.
- Believing the object in Meyers' hand to be a gun, the clerk jumped to the floor and rolled under the counter.
- Meyers then left the store with the money from the register.
- Meyers was apprehended a short time later while still in possession of the money.
Procedural Posture:
- Johnny J. Meyers was charged with armed robbery.
- After a bench trial, the trial court found Meyers guilty of the lesser and included offense of first degree robbery.
- Meyers appealed to the Louisiana Court of Appeal, which reversed the conviction, holding that the evidence was insufficient for first degree robbery because the clerk was not in the room when the money was taken, meaning no 'confrontation' occurred.
- The State of Louisiana sought and was granted certiorari by the Supreme Court of Louisiana to review the intermediate appellate court's decision.
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 the use of force or intimidation by an offender to retain possession of stolen property or to effect an escape, immediately after the physical taking of money, constitute the crime of robbery, even if the victim was not present at the precise moment of the initial taking?
Opinions:
Majority - Lemmon, J.
Yes, the use of force or intimidation immediately after a taking, when directed at the victim to retain possession of the taken property or to facilitate escape, satisfies the "force or intimidation" element of robbery, even if the victim was not present at the moment of the initial taking. The court recognized that while common law historically required violence or intimidation to occur before or contemporaneously with the taking, modern jurisdictions, including the Model Penal Code, have adopted a more expansive view. Under this view, robbery encompasses situations where force or intimidation is part of the 'res gestae' of the larceny, meaning it is used to retain possession immediately after the taking, to carry away the property, or to facilitate escape. The court reasoned that the danger to the victim is identical whether the force or intimidation is employed against the victim immediately before or immediately after the actual taking. Given the evidence, a rational trier of fact could conclude that Meyers used intimidation, by leading the clerk to reasonably believe he was armed, to retain possession of the money and escape, which occurred "in the course of defendant's committing a theft."
Concurring - Dennis, J.
Yes, the taking from the convenience store's operator was not complete when the robber brandished the weapon-like object. This implies that the entire incident, from the initial grab to the escape, should be considered one continuous act of robbery, reinforcing the majority's conclusion that the force or intimidation occurred 'in the course of' the taking.
Analysis:
This case significantly expands the temporal scope of robbery in Louisiana, moving beyond a strict common law interpretation that required force or intimidation to precede or be precisely contemporaneous with the physical taking. By adopting the 'in the course of committing a theft' standard, the court aligns with the Model Penal Code and modern trends, recognizing that the inherent danger to a victim from a thief using force to retain property or escape is the same regardless of the exact timing relative to the initial physical grab. This ruling provides clarity for prosecutors, allowing robbery charges in situations where a thief is discovered shortly after a taking and then employs threats or force, thus increasing the potential for more severe penalties for such actions.
