THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT (STATE),
v.
PATRICK DOUGLAS AND LYDIA COLLINS, APPELLEES (DEFENDANTS); PATRICK DOUGLAS AND LYDIA COLLINS, APPELLANTS (DEFENDANTS), V. STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE (STATE)
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The State appealed the dismissal of a robbery charge against defendants Douglas and Collins, while the defendants appealed their convictions for assault with intent to commit murder. The court held that the defendants' use of force to escape with stolen meat constituted robbery, reversing the trial court's dismissal of that count, but affirmed the assault convictions.
The court held that where force is used concurrent with and as a necessary means to complete the taking and removal of stolen property from the owner's premises, the defendant is chargeable with robbery, not merely larceny followed by a separate assault. The taking was not complete until the defendants successfully removed the property from the store.
[1] Robbery occurs when force is used to escape with property after the owner attempts to prevent the thief's exit from the premises.
[2] The use of force to overcome an owner's interference with a thief's escape is considered concurrent with the taking of the goods.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“The taking was not terminated when the defendants took the meat. If the defendants were to enjoy the meat they stole, they had to get it out of the market. But to do this the defendants had to overcome the manager's actions in interfering with their exit from the store. This required the defendants to use force.”
Establishes that the taking continues through the removal of property from the owner's premises and that force used during this process is concurrent with the taking.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDefendants Douglas and Collins attempted to shoplift meat from a food market by placing it in Collins' shoulder bag. When the store manager intercepte…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Robbery Definition cases and more on FLexlaw
MILLS, Judge.
The State appeals from an order dismissing a count of an information charging Collins and Douglas with robbery. Collins and Douglas appeal from a judgment based on a jury verdict finding Collins guilty of two charges of assault with intent to commit murder in the second degree, and finding Douglas guilty of aggravated battery and assault with intent to commit murder in the second degree. The appeals have been consolidated.
The State contends that the trial court erred in granting the defendants’ motion to dismiss the robbery count of the information. We agree. The attorney for the defendants has filed a brief stating that he finds no error in their trial. We agree.
The manager of a food market saw Douglas grab several pieces of meat from the meat counter and drop them into the shoulder bag of Collins. The manager intercepted them as they attempted to depart by the exit at the front of the store. At the request of the manager, they agreed to walk to the rear of the store with him. As they walked toward the rear of the store, Douglas turned and struck the manager. The manager fought back. Collins then drew a knife and began stabbing the manager and an employee who was accompanying him. After the affray, the defendants ran out the front exit where they were apprehended by a police officer. Collins drew a bloody knife which she handed to Douglas which he dropped when the officer threatened to shoot him. They were arrested and at the time of the arrest the meat was found in Collins’ shoulder bag. The facts are not in dispute.
Section 813.011, Florida Statutes (1973), under which the defendants were charged with robbery, requires that the property of another be taken by force, violence, assault or putting in fear. The defendants urge that the taking of the meat was not accompanied by force; rather, it was a completed larceny which occurred before the commission of the assaults by the defendants.
The question before us, therefore, is whether a person who. finds it necessary to resort to violence in order to escape with the property of another is chargeable with robbery.
The undisputed facts before us are sufficient to support a charge of violence concurrent with the taking of the goods. The taking was not terminated when the defendants took the meat. If the defendants were to enjoy the meat they stole, they had to get it out of the market. But to do this the defendants had to overcome the manager’s actions in interfering with their exit from the store. This required the defendants to use force.
Both reason and logic demand that where the owner of property takes action to prevent a thief from taking his goods from his premises, and the thief uses force in an effort to get away with the goods, the thief’s use of force is concurrent with the taking and constitutes robbery. State v. Culver, 109 N.J.Super. 108, 262 A. 2d 422 (N.J.App.Div.1970).
The series of events which took place here constituted a single occurrence, and is distinguishable from a situation in which force is used to prevent pursuit after the taking is complete.
The order is reversed and this ease is remanded for appropriate action by the trial court.
The judgment is affirmed.
BOYER, C. J., and McCORD, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Stufflebean v. State, 436 So. 2d 244 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)…a judgment of acquittal on the ground that “the state had failed to prove the crime of robbery in that they had failed to prove that the taking in the instant case was accomplished through the use of force.”1 Appellant urges that State v. Douglas, 337 So. 2d 407 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976), cert. denied, 348 So. 2d 946 (Fla.1977), relied upon by the state, actually supports his position. In Douglas, the manager of a food market intercepted the defendants, one of whom he had seen drop merchandise into a shoulder ba…
-
Royal v. State, 452 So. 2d 1098 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984)…her of them, carried a firearm while in the store or that Ellison ever carried or used a firearm. Therefore, the question presented here is whether the taking was completed without the utilization of any force, assault or fear. In State v. Douglas, 337 So. 2d 407 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976), cert. denied, 348 So. 2d 946 (Fla.1977), the manager of the food market saw the defendant grab some pieces of meat and drop them into his co-defendant’s shoulder bag. The manager intercepted the two as they attempted to leave th…
-
Douglas v. State, 349 So. 2d 694 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977)…d upon appellant on December 3, 1975. Appeals involving this same incident were previously before this Court in two consolidated cases — State v. Douglas (and Collins), Case No. AA-247 and Douglas (and Collins) v. State, Case Nos. AA-354 and AA-355, 337 So. 2d 407 (Fla. 1 DCA 1976). Appellant and co-defendant Collins were charged in a three-count information with robbery of Neil Sieracki in Count I, assault with intent to commit first-degree murder of Neil Sieracki in Count II and assault with intent to comm…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence