State v. Davis
Decision Date | 19 January 1980 |
Docket Number | No. 51259,51259 |
Parties | STATE of Kansas, Appellee, v. Edward R. DAVIS, Appellant. |
Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
1. In an appeal from a conviction of aggravated robbery (K.S.A. 21-3427) the court holds a starter pistol is a dangerous weapon. Since robbery has always involved intimidation or fear, the circumstances of the robbery, including the weapon, are examined from the victim's point of view. An object can be a dangerous weapon if intended by the user to convince the victim that it is a dangerous weapon and the victim reasonably believes it is a dangerous weapon.
2. For purposes of sentencing under K.S.A.1978 Supp. 21-4618, a "firearm" is defined as an object having the design or capacity to propel a projectile by force of an explosion, gas, or other combustion.
John C. Amorosa, Kansas City, argued the cause and was on brief, for appellant.
Dennis L. Harris, Asst. Dist. Atty., argued the cause, and Robert T. Stephan, Atty. Gen., and Nick A. Tomasic, Dist. Atty., were with him on brief, for appellee.
This is an appeal in a criminal action from a court judgment which found Edward R. Davis (defendant-appellant) guilty of aggravated robbery (K.S.A. 21-3427). The appellant contends the trial court erred in finding the use of a starter pistol in the robbery elevated the crime to aggravated robbery, and that the court erred in imposing sentence under K.S.A.1978 Supp. 21-4618.
On January 21, 1979, the appellant and a male juvenile entered a 7-11 store in Kansas City, Wyandotte County, Kansas. The appellant displayed a .22 caliber starter pistol and ordered the female store attendant to the rear of the store, where she was told to remove her clothes. While the appellant emptied the cash register his juvenile accomplice raped the store attendant. When the appellant returned to the rear of the store and began talking with his accomplice, the attendant escaped and summoned the police.
The appellant was originally charged with aggravated robbery (K.S.A. 21-3427), rape (K.S.A.1978 Supp. 21-3502(1)(a)), and kidnapping (K.S.A. 21-3420(b)). After preliminary hearing the latter two charges were dropped and the parties proceeded to trial on the single count of aggravated robbery. The information, in pertinent part, charges that "Edward R. Davis and one John Doe, a juvenile, did take property, to wit: U.S. currency from the person or presence of (store attendant) while said defendants were armed with a dangerous weapon, to wit: handgun, contrary to K.S.A. 21-3427."
On May 4, 1979, the case was submitted to the court on stipulated facts. Both the State and the appellant requested the court to determine if the use of a starter pistol elevated the crime from robbery to aggravated robbery. The weapon was described as a .22 caliber blank gun which was incapable of firing a projectile because the barrel was blocked by a piece of metal.
The trial court personally examined the gun and found the appellant guilty of aggravated robbery. Sentence was imposed pursuant to K.S.A.1978 Supp. 21-4618 after the trial court determined that a firearm was used in the crime. Appeal was duly perfected.
The appellant first contends the trial court erred in finding that the display of a starter pistol, which was incapable of firing a projectile, elevated a robbery to an aggravated robbery. K.S.A. 21-3427 defines aggravated robbery as "a robbery committed by a person who is armed with a dangerous weapon or who inflicts bodily harm upon any person in the course of such robbery." Simply stated, our task is to determine whether a starter pistol is a dangerous weapon.
In State v. Mitchell, 220 Kan. 700, 706, 556 P.2d 874 (1976) we held an unloaded gun is a dangerous weapon. In State v. Deutscher, 225 Kan. 265, 267-70, 589 P.2d 620 (1979), we held an unloaded revolver was a deadly weapon, and stated there is no distinction between the terms deadly weapon and dangerous weapon. We have also upheld convictions when the existence or condition of the weapon was questionable. In State v. McCambry, 225 Kan. 803, 804, 594 P.2d 222 (1979), the defendant argued the gun was not a dangerous weapon because it was in two pieces at the scene of the crime. We upheld the conviction, stating that the dangerous nature of the weapon was a question of fact which the jury decided. In State v. Robertson, 225 Kan. 572, 574, 592 P.2d 460 (1979), the defendant never exhibited a weapon to the robbery victim. We nevertheless held the evidence was sufficient to support the charge of aggravated robbery. In reaching that conclusion we stated:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Brooks v. State
...of decisions in states where the aggravated robbery statute does not specify which approach is to be taken. See, e.g., State v. Davis, 227 Kan. 174, 605 P.2d 572 (1980) (also discusses, with approval, the objective approach); Commonwealth v. Sanders, 736 S.W.2d 338 (Ky.1987); Commonwealth v......
-
State v. Marinelli
...a deadly weapon for the purposes of the criminal conviction but was arguably not a deadly weapon for KORA purposes. See State v. Davis , 227 Kan. 174, 605 P.2d 572 (1980) (use of a starter pistol elevated crime from ordinary to aggravated robbery). We need not address these potential asymme......
-
State v. Billoups
... ... 2014 Supp. 21-5420(b)(1) because "[t]he pistol is heavy ... and could easily have been used as a bludgeon against the ... victims, rendering serious injury or even death." ... State v. Prince , 227 Kan. 137, 141, 605 P.2d 563 ... (1980); see State v. Davis , 227 Kan. 174, 177, 605 ... P.2d 572 (1980) (holding starter pistol, incapable of firing ... projectile because barrel was blocked, elevated robbery to ... aggravated robbery because defendant clearly intended store ... attendant to believe gun was operable and dangerous ... ...
-
State v. Sutherland
...real possibility the jury would have returned a different verdict." State v. DeMoss, 244 Kan. 387, 391-92, 770 P.2d 441 (1989). In State v. Davis, 227 Kan. 174, Syl. p 1, 605 P.2d 572 (1980), in determining whether a defendant was armed with a dangerous weapon during a robbery, this court s......