Use this button to switch between dark and light mode.

Share your feedback on this Case Brief

Thank You For Submiting Feedback!

  • Law School Case Brief

Commonwealth v. Rozplochi - 385 Pa. Super. 357, 561 A.2d 25 (1989)

Rule:

Where a defendant threatens to inflict serious bodily injury on two employees in order to effectuate a theft of property from their common employer, the defendant may be convicted of two counts of robbery

Facts:

Appellant entered a business, threatened to kill two employees, and forced an employee to empty the safe at gunpoint. Appellant was found guilty of two counts of robbery and several associated crimes. Appellant contended that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence of one of the counts of robbery, for failing to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence of the firearm offense, and for failing to request a cautionary instruction regarding identification testimony. Appellant also contended that the trial court erred by refusing to suppress identification testimony.

Issue:

By threatening to kill two employees of a business establishment during the course of a single theft, did the defendant commit two independent violations of the robbery statute? 

Answer:

Yes.

Conclusion:

The court affirmed the judgment holding that appellant did not receive ineffective assistance of counsel because trial counsel did not have to argue meritless claims. The court held that appellant was guilty of two robberies, under 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 3701, because sufficient evidence proved that appellant threatened to inflict serious bodily harm on the two employees in order to effectuate the theft from their common employer. Even though the gun was not available at trial, witness testimony sufficiently supported appellant's conviction for illegal possession of a firearm. The employees were robbed in a well-lit room where appellant remained for about 10 minutes. Each victim identified appellant in two out of three photo arrays. The court held that the identification evidence did not indicate that the procedure was so impermissibly subjective as to give rise to a substantial likelihood of mistaken identification.

Access the full text case

Essential Class Preparation Skills

  • How to Answer Your Professor's Questions
  • How to Brief a Case
  • Don't Miss Important Points of Law with BARBRI Outlines (Login Required)

Essential Class Resources

  • CivPro
  • Contracts
  • Constitutional Law
  • Corporations /Business Organizations
  • Criminal Law
  • Criminal Procedure/Investigation
  • Evidence
  • Legal Ethics/Professional Responsibility
  • Property
  • Secured Transactions
  • Torts
  • Trusts & Estates