People v. Reade

• Decision Date: 30 November 1961
• Docket Number: Cr. 7629
• Citation: 197 Cal.App.2d 509,17 Cal.Rptr. 328
• Parties: PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Raymond George READE, Defendant and Appellant.
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

Page 328

17 Cal.Rptr. 328

197 Cal.App.2d 509

PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Raymond George READE, Defendant and Appellant.

Cr. 7629.

District Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 1, California.

Nov. 30, 1961.

Rehearing Denied Dec. 27, 1961.

Hearing Denied Jan. 24, 1962.

Raymond George Reade, appellant, in pro. per.

Stanley Mosk, Atty. Gen., William E. James, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Norman G. Taylor, Deputy Atty. Gen., for respondent.

LILLIE, Justice.

Defendant was charged with robbery of checks and papers in violation of Section 211, Penal Code; he waived his right to a trial by jury; the court found him guilty of robbery, second degree; and he appeals from the judgment of conviction.

Defendant neither testified on his own behalf nor offered a defense. The following facts are uncontradicted. On July 8, 1960, around 2:30 p. m. Mary T. Homma, a cashier for the Pacific Finance Company, left her office to make the company's daily bank deposit; in her left hand she carried an envelope containing 25 checks, 25 money orders and 8 $5 bills. She walked down the corridor and as she turned toward the stairway to descend to the first floor, defendant who had been standing there snatched the envelope from her hand, shoved her to the floor and ran down the stairs out of the building. She 'screamed' and 'hollered out' to the man who operated the candy store in the lobby, 'Help, help, Max, catch the fellow in the green that is running out of the building.'

Appellant's sole contention is that the evidence shows neither force nor fear used at the time the envelope was taken from the victim and at most it supports a finding of grand larceny.

Section 211, Penal Code, defines robbery as the felonious taking of personal property from the person of another and against his will, 'accomplished by means of force or fear.' Thus, although the taking may be accomplished by the use of either force or fear (People v. Kuranoff, 100 Cal.App.2d 673, 224 P.2d 402), proof of one or the other must be made in order to sustain a conviction of robbery. (People v. Russell, 118 Cal.App.2d 136, 257 P.2d 39.)

The record before us supports no conclusion that Miss Homma was in fear, for she testified that she was only startled when the envelope was snatched from her hand and that defendant did not put her in fear. Appellant argues that neither does the evidence support a finding of the force contemplated in section 211, inasmuch as the shove occurred after the envelope was taken from Miss Homma and its sole purpose was to 'by-pass' her in the narrow stairway. He relies mainly on People v. Church, 116 Cal. 300, 48 P. 125, to the effect that the 'grabbing or snatching of property from the hand is not robbery but grand larceny, in the absence of the use of force in the taking.' (A.O.B., p. 6.) If there was no evidence in the record before us to indicate that the taking was accomplished by means of force, the rule of People v. Church, supra, would undoubtedly control; but this is not here the situation. Miss Homma testified that defendant snatched the envelope out of her hand, shoved her to the floor and ran past her down the stairs, out of the building and into the street; that as a result of the shove she fell to the floor on her buttocks, the fall injured her, and her buttocks were sore and 'black and blue for quite a while.'

People v. Church, 116 Cal. 300, 48 P. 125, the facts of which appellant likens to those at bar, involved only the simple 'grabbing' of the victim's watch and chain from his vest and running with them out of the door. The issue there was whether an instruction, which in effect eliminated grand larceny from the case, erroneous. The court, stating the rule that there must be force or fear in the taking to constitute robbery, held that whether the crime constituted robbery or grand larceny 'was dependent upon the absence or presence of the use of force in the taking; and the use or nonuse of force by defendant was a question of fact essential for the jury to determine in fixing the crime of which the defendant should be convicted.' (Pp. 302-303, 48 P. p. 126.) Thus it is clear that where there is evidence of force or fear in the taking of an object 'snatched' from the person of the victim a conviction of robbery will be sustained (People v. Jefferson, 31 Cal.App.2d 562 88 P.2d 238); and the record before us reveals that in shoving Miss Homma, defendant exerted sufficient...