The People v. Williams
57 Cal.4th 776, 161 Cal. Rptr. 3d 81, 305 P.3d 1241 (2013)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The 'felonious taking' element of robbery requires a theft committed by larceny, which involves a trespassory taking. Theft by false pretenses, where a victim consents to transfer title to property based on fraud, does not constitute a trespassory taking and therefore cannot be the underlying theft for a robbery conviction, even if force is used during the perpetrator's escape.
Facts:
- Demetrius Lamont Williams entered a Walmart department store in Palmdale.
- Williams used a re-encoded payment card, containing a third party's credit card information, to purchase a $200 Walmart gift card from a cashier.
- After being told of a store policy against using credit cards for gift card purchases, Williams moved to a different cash register.
- At the new register, Williams used another re-encoded payment card to purchase another $200 gift card.
- Walmart security guards confronted Williams and asked to see his receipt and the payment card used for the transaction.
- When the guards pointed out that the numbers on the card did not match the receipt, Williams began walking toward the exit.
- As Williams continued toward the exit against the guards' commands, he pushed one of the guards and started running away.
- Following a brief struggle, the guards wrestled Williams to the ground and handcuffed him.
Procedural Posture:
- Defendant Demetrius Lamont Williams was charged in a California trial court with multiple offenses, including four counts of second degree robbery.
- A jury convicted Williams on all charged counts.
- Williams, as appellant, appealed to the California Court of Appeal.
- The Court of Appeal affirmed Williams's robbery convictions but reversed other convictions on separate grounds.
- Williams, as petitioner, sought review of the robbery convictions from the Supreme Court of California, which granted his petition.
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 'felonious taking' element of robbery under California Penal Code § 211 encompass theft by false pretenses, thereby allowing a robbery conviction when force is used after the property has been acquired through fraud?
Opinions:
Majority - Kennard, J.
No. The 'felonious taking' element of robbery is synonymous with common law larceny and its required elements. Larceny requires a trespassory taking—a taking without the owner's consent. In theft by false pretenses, the owner consents to transfer both possession and title of the property, which means no trespass occurs. Furthermore, larceny is a continuing offense because of its asportation (carrying away) element, which allows force used during escape to elevate the crime to robbery; by contrast, theft by false pretenses is complete the moment title passes and lacks this continuing element. Because Walmart, through its employees, consented to the transfer of title to the gift cards, Williams committed theft by false pretenses, not larceny, and therefore his subsequent use of force could not transform the completed theft into robbery.
Dissenting - Baxter, J.
Yes. The 'felonious taking' element of robbery should be interpreted to include all forms of theft consolidated under California's unified theft statute. The legislature's intent in enacting Penal Code § 490a was to eliminate the archaic and technical distinctions between larceny, embezzlement, and false pretenses by substituting the word 'theft' for 'larceny' in all statutes. The central element of robbery is the use of force or fear to deprive a victim of property, which protects public safety. The majority's focus on common law distinctions defeats this legislative purpose and creates a loophole where a thief who uses force to escape is culpable for robbery if he shoplifted, but not if he used a fraudulent card moments before.
Analysis:
This decision significantly narrows the application of the Estes robbery rule, which classifies a theft as a robbery if force is used during the asportation phase. By holding that only larceny can serve as the predicate theft for robbery, the court creates a bright-line distinction based on historical common law elements that the legislature had previously consolidated. This ruling prevents prosecutors from charging robbery in cases where a defendant obtains property through fraud (e.g., a bad check or fake credit card) and then uses force to escape. The case prioritizes a strict, historical interpretation of statutory language over a more flexible, policy-oriented approach focused on the violent conduct that robbery statutes aim to deter.
