State v. Thomas
447 So. 2d 1053 (1984)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
For simple robbery, "intimidation" can be established by a defendant's use of apparent authority and verbal threats that create apprehension, preventing victims from opposing the taking, even without overt physical force or an explicit threat of physical harm.
Facts:
- On the night of April 4, 1981, Richard Barber and his girlfriend, Laurie Dawson, were driving on Pontchartrain Boulevard in New Orleans.
- Reginald Thomas, driving a red Monte Carlo, pulled alongside Barber’s truck, flashed his bright lights, displayed a badge, and motioned for Barber to pull over.
- Believing Thomas to be a police officer, Barber stopped his pickup truck.
- Thomas, dressed in street clothes, opened Dawson's passenger door and told the couple they would be in serious trouble if they had any drugs in the truck.
- Thomas ordered Barber to look away while he rummaged through the truck's cab and Dawson's purse, and then instructed Barber to stand behind the truck.
- After completing his search, Thomas told Barber to drive away without looking back.
- When Barber reached home about thirty minutes later, Dawson discovered $30 missing from her purse, and Barber found $150 missing from his dashboard money clip.
Procedural Posture:
- Reginald Thomas was charged with two counts of simple robbery.
- A jury in the trial court convicted Reginald Thomas of two counts of simple robbery.
- The trial court adjudicated Reginald Thomas a fourth offender under LSA-R.S. 15:529.1 and sentenced him to life imprisonment at hard labor.
- Reginald Thomas appealed his convictions and sentence to the Supreme Court of Louisiana, arguing there was insufficient evidence of "force or intimidation" for simple robbery and that his sentence was excessive. The State of Louisiana was the plaintiff-appellee, and Reginald Thomas was the defendant-appellant.
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 a defendant's use of apparent authority and verbal threats, without overt physical force or explicit threats of physical harm, sufficient to establish the element of "intimidation" required for a conviction of simple robbery under LSA-R.S. 14:65?
Opinions:
Majority - Watson, Justice
Yes, Reginald Thomas's use of apparent authority and verbal threats was sufficient to establish the element of "intimidation" for simple robbery. Applying the standard from Jackson v. Virginia, the court determined that a rational trier of fact could find the essential elements of robbery beyond a reasonable doubt. Robbery is an offense against the person, distinct from theft, because it involves an "increased risk of danger to human life caused when a theft is attempted in the face of the victim's opposition" (State v. Johnson). The victims, Barber and Dawson, were clearly intimidated: first by Thomas's badge, then by his threat of trouble, and finally by his general demeanor and aura of authority as he acted under the guise of a police officer searching for drugs. The property was sufficiently under the victims' control that they could have prevented the taking absent intimidation (State v. Mason). The jury reasonably concluded that Thomas made the stop, conducted the search, and misappropriated the money by use of intimidation, and this face-to-face confrontation involved the increased risk of bodily harm which distinguishes robbery from theft. Regarding the sentence, the court found no manifest abuse of discretion in the life imprisonment for a fourth felony offender, noting the trial judge's familiarity with Thomas's record and his desire to protect society.
Dissenting - Blanche, Justice
No, a mere threat to accuse or arrest without actual force or a threat of physical harm is not sufficient to satisfy the "intimidation" element for simple robbery. Justice Blanche argued that Thomas used "subterfuge or false pretense" to steal, not the kind of intimidation that creates apprehension of danger to the person, which is traditionally required for robbery. The victims testified no force or violence was used. Barber's fear was of getting a ticket, not physical harm, and Dawson ceased to believe Thomas was a policeman during the search. Citing common law definitions and California Penal Code §§ 211 and 212, the dissent asserts that fear for robbery must be of physical harm to the person or property, and there must be a causal connection between the victim's fear and the acquisition of property. Here, the victims were unaware anything was taken until later, indicating no actual resistance was overcome by intimidation. The dissent suggests Thomas was guilty of theft or extortion, not robbery, criticizing the majority for recognizing robbery without the use or threat of force. Additionally, Justice Blanche dissented from the failure to remand for resentencing, arguing the trial court did not adequately comply with LSA-C.Cr.P. art. 894.1 by imposing a maximum life sentence based on a prior "promise" rather than a thorough consideration of the specific circumstances and proportionality.
Analysis:
This case significantly broadens the interpretation of "intimidation" within the context of simple robbery in Louisiana. By acknowledging that psychological coercion, based on apparent authority and verbal threats, can satisfy the intimidation requirement even in the absence of overt physical force or explicit threats of physical harm, the ruling expands the scope of robbery beyond its traditional common law definition. This precedent potentially allows for more non-violent property crimes involving a deceptive show of authority to be prosecuted as robbery, leading to more severe penalties than theft or extortion. Future courts will likely rely on this decision when determining whether a defendant's actions created sufficient apprehension to constitute intimidation for robbery.
