Walton v. State
1974 Wisc. LEXIS 1329, 218 N.W.2d 309, 64 Wis. 2d 36 (1974)
Rule of Law:
For the crime of robbery, the element of 'force' does not require actual physical violence or injury to the victim, but encompasses any hostile or wrongful physical contact used to overcome physical resistance or the victim’s power of resistance to the taking of property, even if the contact is slight.
Facts:
- On September 8, 1972, at approximately 2:30 p.m., a 64-year-old retired female bookkeeper, after making a bank deposit, was walking on 6th Street in downtown Racine, Wisconsin.
- She was carrying clothing and a green bank pouch, containing her glasses, a five-dollar bill, a deposit slip, and a savings deposit book, cradled over her left arm in front of her stomach.
- She noticed the defendant following her for about one block and became fearful.
- To avoid him, she stopped in front of a restaurant, where two men were sitting, hoping the defendant would pass her.
- The defendant approached her, snatched or pulled the pouch out of her arms without touching her body or saying anything, and immediately fled down the street.
- Two men witnessed the incident and identified the defendant at trial.
Procedural Posture:
- The defendant was charged and convicted of robbery in a trial court.
- At the close of testimony, defense counsel moved for a directed verdict, arguing that the state had failed to present sufficient evidence of force, but the motion was denied by the trial court.
- The defendant appealed his conviction to the Wisconsin Supreme Court, raising issues regarding the sufficiency of evidence for force, the refusal to submit a lesser-included offense instruction, the excessiveness of his sentence, and the refusal to grant a new trial.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Was the evidence of force sufficient to sustain the defendant’s conviction for robbery under Wis. Stat. sec. 943.32 (1) (a) when he snatched a bank pouch from a victim’s arms without directly touching her person or causing physical injury?
Opinions:
Majority - Connor T. Hansen, J.
Yes, the evidence of force was sufficient to sustain the defendant’s conviction for robbery. The court affirmed that 'force, in legal contemplation, does not always mean physical violence,' citing State v. Lewis. This precedent established that any hostile or wrongful touching of a person's clothing, person, or belongings attached to them, even if slight and unnoticed, constitutes legal force sufficient for offenses like larceny from the person. In this case, the victim was clutching the bank pouch between her arms and her stomach, and the defendant snatched it from her. The court found this action was taken 'by force and in such a manner as to overcome any physical resistance or power of resistance by the victim.' The victim's fear and the relative disparity in age and physical capability between the 64-year-old victim and the 26-year-old defendant further supported the finding that force was used to overcome her possession. The court emphasized that a victim is not required to engage in an altercation or suffer physical injury for the force element of robbery to be satisfied. Given the clear evidence of force, the trial court correctly refused to submit a jury instruction on the lesser-included offense of theft from a person, as there was no reasonable ground in the evidence for a jury to acquit on robbery while convicting on the lesser charge.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the definition of 'force' within Wisconsin's robbery statute, distinguishing it from 'violence' and establishing that even minimal physical contact or the overcoming of passive resistance constitutes sufficient force. It sets an important precedent for 'purse snatching' cases, ensuring that such acts can be prosecuted as robbery if the property is taken by overcoming the victim's physical possession, even without direct bodily harm or overt struggle. The ruling emphasizes that victim fear and the implicit power dynamics can contribute to the finding of force, relieving victims of the burden to actively resist or suffer injury to validate a robbery charge.
