Elements Of Robbery In People V Mungia

A jury will probably convict Zupp of robbery. According to LaFave & Scott, “Robbery consists of the trespassory taking and carrying away of the personal property of another with the intent to steal it in addition to the property being taken from the person and accomplished by means of force or fear.” These elements are applied to the incident between the victim, Marvin Melody, and the defendant, Zupp. There was a trespassory taking when Zupp grabbed the novel out of Marvin Melody’s hand. The carrying away of the property was enacted when Zupp ran away from the store with the book. The slightest movement of the book would fulfill this requirement. The book was taken from Marvin Melody’s hand who was also the store owner. Thus, the victim

was in both constructive and actual possession of the book even though one suffices. The ambiguous elements in question are Zupp’s intent to steal and the application of force or fear during the robbery.
In order to support a robbery conviction, the taking, either the gaining of the possession or the carrying away must be accomplished by force or fear (People v. Cooper). Additionally, the relative concept of force suggests that, “some persons are more vulnerable, unguarded, unprotected to the defendant’s criminal act” (People v. Smith). The holding in Mungia found that the victim’s physical characteristics may be used to evaluate force. Mrs. Hogeland’s testimony of the crime revealed that she was 8 months pregnant and more susceptible to being shoved off balance by the defendant when he grabbed her purse from her possession and thus he was convicted of robbery. It can be inferred that Zupp used some force initially when he grabbed the book from Marvin and successfully gained possession of the book since he was a “little guy” in comparison to the victim. During the second incident, Zupp threw the book at Marvin and in this action he used more force than necessary causing Marvin to fall to the ground. Similarly, in Mrs. Hogeland’s case, the jury took into consideration her being shoved-off balance and less able to recover her equilibrium quickly after the force was exerted. It is questionable whether actual force or fear was implemented during the initial act of carrying the possession away. Nonetheless, the second action of throwing the book at Marvin constitutes force within the meaning of section 211.
Despite the significance of physical characteristics, the holding in People v. Mungia contends that there must be a separate action in the taking for it to constitute force. This action was fulfilled when the defendant shoved Mrs. Hogeland and snatched her purse from her shoulder. Accordingly, Marvin states,“ he bumped my wrist as he took the book from my hand.” The word “as” seems to imply during the taking and not separate from. However, shortly before taking the book, Zupp began to curse at Marvin which startled him. If this was sufficient evidence for fear then it would constitute as a separate action since the wrist bumping was incidental.
Neither resistance by the victim nor threats by the perpetrator are necessary elements of robbery according to section 211.The force or fear required by section 211 is not synonymous with a physical corporeal assault and must be presumed to be within the understanding of jurors (People v.

Hays). In People v. Mungia, the jury decided that the defendant used more force than necessary to accomplish theft from the person because the defendant was larger and the victim was more susceptible to his shove. Zupp may have used more force than necessary to accomplish the taking of the book however the victim was not susceptible to him since he was a “little guy.” In both cases the defendants came in contact with the victim by either a “shove” or a “bump.” Since force is relative, the jury must decide whether or not the force exerted was incidental or an intentional separate

action.
“ Mere theft becomes robbery if the perpetrator, having gained possession of the property without use of force or fear, resorts to force or fear while carrying away the loot”(People v. Pham). Asportation is defined as a very slight movement of the taken property. People v. Pham held that using force or fear in resistant attempts to regain property or during asportation is robbery. In Pham, the defendant stole items from the victim's car. The victim caught up to him as the defendant was running away. The defendant dropped the property and fought the victim. The holding was that force can be used after the taking if it is during the carrying away and used to facilitate escape. In this case, the defendant threw the book at Marvin to facilitate his escape. Asportation continued during the time that the force was exerted despite Zupp’s failure to escape with the loot. In Pham, the defendant wanted to prevent the victim from recovering the goods. In this case, Zupp wanted to get away from the victim. In both cases,the defendants did not have dominion over the property after using explicit force.
It can be argued that if the defendant truly abandoned the victim's property before using force then he could be guilty of theft.

If a threat is employed to prevent the owner from recovering the property or to facilitate an escape, the offense could not be an attempted robbery (People v. Pham). In Pham, the defendant continued to struggle with the victims until the police arrived. He was physically restraining them and did not show intent to abandon the property. Whereas, Zupp threw the book at the defendant and ran immediately after the throw. He did not show intent to stay with the property. However, there is no requirement that the robber have manual possession of the property when escaping the scene (People v.

Estes).
Theft becomes robbery when force or fear is used for the first time during asportation.In Pham, asportation continued even though the defendant threw the loot at the ground. Robbery does not require that the loot be carried away after force or fear. Since a very slight movement is asportation then the initial taking of the book was the beginning of asportation and the chase ensued by Zupp was a continuation. Zupp threw the book mid chase. Regardless of his intent to abandon the property, he tried to exert force to facilitate his escape.
Robbery requires the specific intent to deprive the victim of his or her property permanently(In re Albert A.). A good faith belief does not apply to ransom and if an intent to return the property is illusory then the defendant permanently deprived someone of their property. In the case of re Albert A., the appellant stole Ali’s bike for ransom even though he knew that Ali did not take his bike. He threatened to hit Ali and knock him down if he did not surrender his bike. Appellant returned bicycle to police after he was called in. It was concluded, that the appellant committed a robbery and he intended to permanently deprive the victim of the property despite returning the bicycle to the police. Even the return of property previously taken does not compel the conclusion that a defendant intended to only temporarily deprive the owner of the property( In re Albert A.). Although, Zupp threw the book at Marvin when confronted, it does not dispel the fact that he intended to permanently deprive him of the property. He threw the book in order to escape. Both defendants had a claim of debt due however according to People v. Creath, “a claim of debt due does not excuse an unlawful possession of property.” Since Zupp took the book because he thought that it was rightfully his it can be assumed that he did not have an intent to temporarily keep it.
On the other hand, according to Butler, a bonafide claim of right even if mistaken, will negate the intent to steal. Butler (the defendant) was charged with the murder of Joseph Anderson and assault with attempt to murder William Russell Locklear. However, Butler testified that Anderson owed him money and he went over to the victim’s home to claim what was rightfully his. The judgment of conviction of murder was reversed since it was believed that he had a claim of right to the money owed to him. Similarly, Zupp believed that he had a claim of right to the novel that he purchased. According to Butler, this belief would negate felonious intent even though Zupp had materially altered the book he initially received by writing in pencil. In both cases there was no conflicting evidence to suggest that the defendants did not act in good faith.
Since Butler was decided, a number of jurisdictions have rejected the claim of right defense on the basis that force should not be used for self-help debt collection as a matter of public policy. The reasoning for convicting the defendant in re Albert A. for robbery was that he did not have any claim of right to Ali’s bicycle but only to his own. Similarly to the defendant in re Albert a., who knew he was taking a bike that didn’t belong to him, Zupp wrote in the book that wasn’t his and tried to return it. This action does not compel the conclusion that Zupp was acting in good faith when returning the book in exchange for the book he claimed to be rightfully is.