State v. Sein
590 A.2d 665, 124 N.J. 209 (1991)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The sudden snatching of property from a victim's person, without any more force than is necessary to remove the object, does not constitute robbery. For a theft to be elevated to robbery, the perpetrator must use force beyond the mere physical act of taking, such as that involved in a struggle, causing injury, or wresting the object from the victim.
Facts:
- On August 27, 1986, Edythe Williams cashed an unemployment check and placed the money in her strapless, clutch-type purse.
- Williams carried the purse under her right arm as she walked to her parked car.
- As Williams stood by the passenger-side door preparing to unlock it, Francisco Sein approached and stood beside her.
- Without speaking, Sein reached across Williams and slid the purse from under her arm.
- Williams offered no resistance, and no force was used beyond the amount required to slide the purse from her grasp.
- Sein then fled with the purse.
Procedural Posture:
- Francisco Sein was indicted for robbery by a grand jury.
- At the conclusion of the State's case in the trial court, Sein moved for a judgment of acquittal on the robbery charge, arguing the case should proceed only on the lesser-included offense of theft.
- The trial court denied Sein's motion.
- A jury found Sein guilty of second-degree robbery.
- Sein, as appellant, appealed to the Appellate Division, arguing there was insufficient evidence of force to support the robbery conviction.
- The Appellate Division reversed the robbery conviction and remanded the case for entry of a judgment of conviction for theft and for resentencing.
- The State, as petitioner, was granted certification for appeal by the Supreme Court of New Jersey.
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 sudden snatching of a purse from a victim's grasp, without additional violence or victim resistance, constitute the use of 'force upon another' sufficient to elevate the crime from theft to second-degree robbery under N.J.S.A. 2C:15-1a(1)?
Opinions:
Majority - Clifford, J.
No, the sudden snatching of a purse without additional force does not elevate theft to robbery. The court adopted the majority rule among jurisdictions, which holds that a simple, sudden taking of property from another's person does not involve sufficient force to constitute robbery. The court reasoned that the New Jersey Legislature's 1981 amendment adding the phrase 'or uses force' to the robbery statute was intended to clarify, not expand, the pre-Code law, which required a struggle, violence, or disruption for a taking to be robbery. The court distinguished the minimal force needed for a 'snatching,' which the theft statute contemplates, from the more significant force required to 'wrest' an object from a victim, which the robbery statute's legislative history suggests is required. Therefore, force directed only at the object itself, without resistance from the victim, is insufficient.
Dissenting - Wilentz, C.J.
Yes, the sudden snatching of a purse should be considered robbery. The dissent argues that the legislature's intent in amending the robbery statute was to make all purse snatchings, a particularly frightening and prevalent street crime, robberies in order to deter them. The majority's focus on the degree of force or whether an object was 'wrested' creates an artificial distinction that depends on the victim's reflexes rather than the perpetrator's criminal conduct. The legislative history, including the Governor's statement and the Senate Judiciary Committee's focus on 'blind-side' muggings, indicates a clear purpose to reclassify the entire offense of purse snatching, regardless of the precise amount of force used. Any force used to take property from a person's grasp is force 'upon another' and should satisfy the statute.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies New Jersey's adherence to the majority common-law rule distinguishing theft from robbery based on the level of force used. It establishes that the mere act of snatching an item from a victim is not, by itself, robbery, thereby setting a higher evidentiary bar for prosecutors. Future cases involving purse-snatchings must focus on tangible evidence of force beyond the taking itself, such as a struggle, injury, or the overcoming of significant resistance. This precedent narrows the scope of the robbery statute and may lead to more defendants being convicted of the lesser offense of theft in similar scenarios.
