State v. Rittman
324 Wis. 2d 273, 781 N.W.2d 545, 2010 WI App 41 (2010)
Rule of Law:
A conviction for robbery with the use or threat of a dangerous weapon can be sustained if the victim reasonably believed the perpetrator was armed, even if no weapon was displayed or explicitly mentioned.
Facts:
- Roy Lee Rittman entered a bank and approached a teller, whom she did not recognize and whose presence alerted her to a possible threat due to her past experiences with robberies.
- Rittman handed the teller a note that read: 'Put all money from drawer on counter quietly and quickly. No one gets hurt.'
- After giving the note, Rittman immediately placed his right hand into his pocket, keeping it out of the teller's view.
- The teller feared Rittman had some type of weapon in his pocket and did not want to find out what it was.
- As a result of her fear, the teller warned a co-worker to 'get down' to avoid injury and quickly gave Rittman the money.
- Before leaving the bank, Rittman warned the teller to 'get down' and stated that 'nobody would get hurt if nobody followed him or didn't do anything'.
Procedural Posture:
- Roy Lee Rittman was found guilty in a bench trial of robbery where the victim reasonably believed the robber was armed with a dangerous weapon.
- Rittman appealed the judgment of guilt to the Wisconsin Court of Appeals.
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 support a conviction for aggravated robbery where the victim reasonably believed the perpetrator was armed with a dangerous weapon, even though the perpetrator did not display a weapon or explicitly state possession of one?
Opinions:
Majority - Fine, J.
Yes, the evidence was sufficient to support the finding of guilt because the teller's belief that Roy Lee Rittman was armed with a dangerous weapon was reasonable under the circumstances, even without him displaying a weapon or explicitly stating he had one. The court's review of sufficiency of evidence requires determining if any possibility exists that the trier of fact could have drawn appropriate inferences from the evidence to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, viewing the evidence most favorably to the state. Wisconsin Statute § 943.32(2) enhances robbery to a Class C felony if committed by 'use or threat of use of a dangerous weapon... or any article used or fashioned in a manner to lead the victim reasonably to believe that it is a dangerous weapon.' Citing State v. Witkowski, the court reiterated that a victim's reasonable belief is sufficient, even if based on verbal representation alone, or combined with conduct and other physical evidence. Rittman's actions included a note threatening harm ('No one gets hurt'), his immediate action of putting his hand into his pocket after delivering the note, and his subsequent threats during his escape. These combined circumstances reasonably led the teller to believe Rittman possessed a dangerous weapon. The court noted that it would have been 'foolhardy' for the teller to disbelieve Rittman simply because she did not see a weapon or hear him explicitly state he had one, particularly given the strong circumstantial evidence and implied threats.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the standard for proving the 'reasonable belief' element in aggravated robbery charges. It emphasizes that circumstantial evidence and implied threats, without the explicit display or verbal mention of a weapon, can be sufficient to establish a victim's reasonable belief. This precedent broadens the scope for prosecutors to secure convictions in 'no-show weapon' robbery cases, shifting the focus to the victim's objectively reasonable apprehension rather than requiring direct evidence of a weapon. It also highlights the importance of the totality of the circumstances surrounding the robbery in assessing the reasonableness of the victim's fear.
