Wheeler v. State
826 So. 2d 731, 2002 WL 31087654 (2002)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Taking the personal property of another after rendering the victim unconscious through violence constitutes robbery, as the victim's lack of awareness resulting from the perpetrator's actions does not negate the statutory element of taking 'by violence to his person.'
Facts:
- James Clark, an elderly man, was known by family members to keep large sums of cash in his home.
- A few days after a prior robbery, Clark was severely beaten in his home late at night or in the early morning.
- During the attack, Clark's television and an unknown amount of cash were stolen.
- Clark's granddaughter found him the next morning lying in a puddle of blood with severe facial injuries.
- Around 6:00 a.m. on the morning of the attack, Vincent Wheeler was seen by multiple witnesses attempting to sell Clark's television.
- Wheeler gave a statement to police admitting that he pushed open Clark's door, entered the home, hit Clark after he woke up, and then took the television.
- As a result of the injuries sustained in the attack, Clark was hospitalized, moved to a nursing home, and died a few months later.
Procedural Posture:
- Vincent Wheeler was initially indicted in the Lee County Circuit Court for robbery, burglary, and aggravated assault.
- After the victim died, the prosecution obtained a superseding indictment for capital murder, and the trial court retired the original indictment.
- Subsequently, the capital murder indictment was retired, and the original three-count indictment for robbery, burglary, and aggravated assault was reinstated.
- A jury found Wheeler guilty on all three counts.
- The trial court denied Wheeler's motions for a directed verdict and for a new trial.
- Wheeler appealed his convictions to the Supreme Court of Mississippi.
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 rendering a person unconscious through violence and then taking their personal property constitute the crime of robbery under Mississippi law?
Opinions:
Majority - Presiding Justice McRae
Yes, rendering a person unconscious through violence and then taking their property constitutes robbery. The court rejected Wheeler's argument that the victim must be conscious and in fear for the taking to qualify as robbery. The statute does not require that the victim be aware of the taking; it requires that the taking be accomplished by violence. Wheeler's admitted act of striking Clark and knocking him into a chair was the violence that enabled the subsequent theft. Citing precedent that robbing a corpse in close proximity to death is still robbery, the court held that rendering a person unconscious and then robbing them likewise falls squarely within the robbery statute.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the scope of the 'by violence' element within Mississippi's robbery statute. It prevents defendants from using the victim's incapacitation—a direct result of their own violent act—as a defense to a robbery charge. The ruling solidifies that the critical link is causal: if violence is used to facilitate a theft, the crime is robbery, regardless of the victim's state of consciousness when the property is physically removed. This interpretation forecloses a potential loophole that would distinguish between theft from a conscious victim and theft from a victim rendered unconscious by the perpetrator's assault.
