Winn v. Commonwealth

Court of Appeals of Virginia
21 Va. App. 179, 462 S.E.2d 911 (1995)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

The force used to accomplish the taking of property from a person's possession must be directed at the victim's person, not merely the property itself, to elevate the crime from larceny to robbery. A sudden snatching of property, without a struggle or other violence or intimidation directed at the victim, does not constitute robbery.

Facts:

The victim was walking through a grocery store parking lot at approximately 8:30 p.m., accompanied by a store employee.
Kenneth Gaylock Winn approached the victim from behind.
Winn took the victim's purse, which was worn over her shoulder, by 'very strongly' pulling it from under her arm.
The entire event lasted only a few seconds.
The victim testified that there was no struggle between her and Winn.
Winn fled with the purse and was later apprehended.

Procedural Posture:

Kenneth Gaylock Winn was charged with robbery in the Henrico County trial court.
Winn was tried without a jury (a bench trial) and was convicted of robbery.
Winn (appellant) appealed the conviction to the Court of Appeals of Virginia, arguing the evidence was insufficient to prove the element of violence or intimidation.
The Commonwealth of Virginia is the appellee.

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 forcefully snatching a purse from a victim's shoulder, without any accompanying struggle, physical contact with the victim's person, or intimidation, constitute sufficient violence to support a robbery conviction?

Opinions:

Majority - Elder, Judge

No. The evidence was insufficient to prove Winn used the violence or intimidation required for robbery. Robbery is a common law offense against the person that requires a taking by violence or intimidation which precedes or is concomitant with the taking. The force used cannot merely be the force associated with the taking itself; it must be a physical touching or violation of the victim's person. Citing the predominant view from other jurisdictions, the court holds that a sudden taking of property, such as a purse snatching, does not in itself constitute robbery. To be robbery, there must be additional circumstances, such as a struggle ensuing, the victim being knocked down or injured, or the victim being put in fear. In this case, the 'very strong' force Winn used was directed at the purse to remove it from the victim's shoulder, not at the victim's person. As there was no evidence of a struggle, physical contact, or intimidation, the conviction for robbery cannot stand.

Analysis:

This decision clarifies the line between robbery and larceny from the person in Virginia, specifically in the context of 'purse snatching' cases. It aligns Virginia law with the majority of other states, requiring that the element of violence or intimidation be directed at the person, not just the property being stolen. The ruling establishes a higher evidentiary bar for prosecutors seeking a robbery conviction in snatch-and-grab thefts, obligating them to prove an additional act of force or intimidation beyond what was necessary to simply take the item. This precedent reinforces that robbery is fundamentally an offense against the person, not just a property crime.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Winn v. Commonwealth (1995)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"