The three elements of robbery are: (1) felonious intent, (2) force or putting in fear as a means of effectuating the intent, and (3) by that means taking and carrying away the property of another from his person or in his presence.
Defendant was convicted in the Circuit Court and he appealed his conviction. The alleged victim testified that defendant took money from his wallet. He never said that any force of violence was used. On cross examination, he stated that defendant did not in any way use force, violence, or fear to get his money. Defendant argued that the trial court erred in refusing to grant his request for a directed verdict. The State argued that, if the evidence was insufficient to sustain the robbery charge, the evidence was sufficient to sustain a conviction of the lesser included offense of larceny.
Whether the trial court erred in refusing to grant Defendant's motion regarding a robbery?
The court found that the trial court erred in refusing to grant defendant's motion for a directed verdict insofar as the crime of robbery was concerned because the State failed to prove the necessary element that defendant used force or putting in fear to effectuate a felonious intent. The court could not sustain a conviction of the consistent offense of grand larceny because the State chose to rely upon the charge of robbery, and the trial court submitted the case to the jury on that charge, instead of submitting the case to the jury on the lesser included offense of grand larceny.
The court ordered defendant held for further action of the grand jury.