People v. Williams - 57 Cal. 4th 776, 161 Cal. Rptr. 3d 81, 305 P.3d 1241 (2013)

Rule:

Two differences in the crimes of larceny and theft by false pretenses tend to support the conclusion that only theft by larceny, not by false pretenses, can fulfill the "felonious taking" requirement of robbery. First, larceny requires "asportation," which is a carrying away of stolen property. This element of larceny, although satisfied by only the slightest movement, continues until the perpetrator reaches a place of temporary safety. Asportation is what makes larceny a continuing offense. Because larceny is a continuing offense, a defendant who uses force or fear in an attempt to escape with property taken by larceny has committed robbery. But theft by false pretenses, unlike larceny, has no requirement of asportation. The offense requires only that (1) the defendant made a false pretense or representation to the owner of property; (2) with the intent to defraud the owner of that property; and (3) the owner transferred the property to the defendant in reliance on the representation. The crime of theft by false pretenses ends at the moment title to the property is acquired, and thus cannot become robbery by the defendant's later use of force or fear. 

Facts:

Demetrius Lamont Williams used re-encoded payment cards to buy gift cards at a department store. After the store's security guards were alerted to the scam, they asked Williams to show them the gift card receipts and the payment cards used. Williams did so. When he was told that the numbers on the cards did not match those on the receipts, he began walking away, ignored the security guards' requests to stop, and then shoved one of the guards. After a brief struggle, Williams was handcuffed. Williams was later charged with and convicted of several offenses, including, as relevant here, robbery and theft. He here challenges his robbery convictions. According to the Court of Appeal, which upheld Williams’ robbery convictions, theft by false pretenses can satisfy the “felonious taking” requirement of robbery. 

Issue:

Did Williams commit theft by larceny?

Answer:

No.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court concluded that Williams did not commit larceny under Pen. Code, § 484, or robbery under Pen. Code, § 211. Rather, the theft Williams committed was by false pretenses, which cannot satisfy the "felonious taking" element of robbery. A store, through its employees, had consented to transferring title to gift cards to defendant. Williams acquired ownership of the gift cards through his false representation, on which the store relied, that he was using valid payment cards to purchase the gift cards. Only after discovering the fraud did the store seek to reclaim possession. Williams ignored the requests of the store's security guards to stop and then shoved one of the guards. After a brief struggle inside the store, the guards wrestled Williams to the ground and handcuffed him. Because a "felonious taking," as required in the robbery statute must be without the consent of the property owner, or against the owner's will, and the store consented to the sale of the gift cards, defendant did not commit a nonconsensual taking and hence did not commit robbery.