State v. Skaggs
601 P.2d 862, 42 Or.App. 763, 1979 Ore. App. LEXIS 3318 (1979)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The intent to commit theft, a necessary element of robbery, can be inferred from the defendant's actions of disposing of property under circumstances that make it unlikely the owner will recover it, even if the defendant's primary motive was to facilitate an escape.
Facts:
- A Clackamas County deputy sheriff interrupted defendant and another person who were apparently stealing a vehicle.
- A scuffle ensued between the officer and the defendant's associate over possession of the officer's service revolver.
- During the struggle, the defendant stabbed the officer twice.
- The defendant then grabbed the officer by the hair, held an object to his throat, and threatened him to release the gun.
- After being struck a third time, the officer lost control of the revolver.
- The defendant and his associate fled the scene in the officer's patrol car, taking the revolver with them.
- A witness later saw the defendant with the revolver, trying to operate its jammed mechanism before it was turned over to police.
Procedural Posture:
- Defendant was charged in trial court under two indictments for multiple crimes, including theft, assault, robbery, and unauthorized use of a vehicle.
- The cases were consolidated for a jury trial.
- The defendant moved for a directed verdict of acquittal on the robbery charge, which the trial court denied.
- The jury convicted the defendant on all four charges.
- The defendant, as appellant, appealed his convictions to the Oregon 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:
Is there sufficient evidence of intent to commit theft of a revolver to support a robbery conviction when a defendant violently takes the weapon from a police officer primarily to disarm him and facilitate an escape?
Opinions:
Majority - Joseph, P.J.
Yes. There is sufficient evidence for a jury to find intent to commit theft. Under Oregon statute, intent to commit theft is present when there is an intent to dispose of property under circumstances as to render it unlikely that an owner will recover it. The defendant's actions of violently disarming the officer, taking the revolver from the scene, and later being seen trying to operate it were sufficient for a jury to reasonably infer an intent to deprive the officer of his property. The defendant's argument that his sole intent was to escape does not negate the inference that he also intended to keep the gun, as his actions made the owner's recovery of it unlikely.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies that for a robbery conviction, the 'intent to steal' element does not require a pre-conceived plan to acquire the specific property taken. The court establishes that intent can be formed during the commission of another crime and inferred from actions that make the property's recovery by the owner improbable. This broadens the application of robbery statutes to situations where a taking is incidental to another objective, like escape, holding that the effect of the defendant's actions on the owner's property rights is paramount. This precedent makes it easier for the prosecution to prove intent in similar cases by focusing on the objective circumstances of the taking rather than the defendant's subjective motive.
Unlock the full brief for State v. Skaggs