Walker v. State, 88-240
| Court | Court of Appeal of Florida (US) |
| Citation | 546 So.2d 1165,14 Fla. L. Weekly 1811 |
| Docket Number | No. 88-240,88-240 |
| Parties | 14 Fla. L. Weekly 1811 Anthony WALKER, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Decision Date | 01 August 1989 |
Page 1165
v.
The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Third District.
Page 1166
Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender, and Harvey J. Sepler and Robert Kalter, Asst. Public Defenders, for appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., and Joni B. Braunstein, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Angelica D. Zayas, Certified Legal Intern, for appellee.
Before HUBBART, NESBITT and FERGUSON, JJ.
FERGUSON, Judge.
The appellant, Anthony Walker, raises two issues in this appeal from his robbery conviction: 1) The motion to reduce the charge from robbery to grand theft should have been granted; and 2) the bailiff's communication with the jury caused prejudicial harm. On the first point, we agree that the State failed to prove an essential element of the robbery statute and for that reason the charge should have been reduced to theft. On the second point, we hold that the communication between the bailiff and jury, owing to its nature, did not constitute reversible error.
The facts at trial established that the victim, fifteen-year-old Angelica Cordoba, had been riding in a car driven by sixteen-year-old Kenny Kravit at approximately 10:30 p.m. when Kravit made a wrong turn and became lost in a "bad" neighborhood. Kravit's car then collided with another vehicle. After the teenagers exchanged information with the driver of the other car, a black male bystander, later identified as Anthony Walker, approached Kravit with an offer to repair the damage to Kravit's car for $50. Kravit, who was driving his parents' Cadillac and frightened at the prospect of facing his parents with the damaged vehicle, initially accepted Walker's offer. The teenagers, nevertheless, became apprehensive about the deal and informed the defendant that they had decided to have the car repaired elsewhere.
Ms. Cordoba testified that although Walker was friendly, she was upset because she had never been involved in an accident before, and she was afraid of the reputedly tough neighborhood. She stated that she became increasingly nervous as the defendant, a strange black man, moved close to her and held the car door open for her. As the defendant stood next to her, Ms. Cordoba felt his fingers on the back of her neck and then saw him run away. She reached up, touched her neck, and realized that her gold chain had been taken. Police officers subsequently arrested Walker a few blocks away.
At trial the defense counsel moved to reduce the charge from robbery to theft, arguing that until she saw the defendant in flight the victim did not know that her necklace had been taken, therefore, the taking was not accomplished by the use of fear, force, or violence as required by the robbery statute. The motion was denied
Page 1167
and the jury returned a verdict of guilty of robbery as charged.The crime of robbery is defined as "the taking of money or...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Stokeling v. United States, 17–5554.
...within the meaning of the robbery statute," simply because the victim "fe[els] his fingers on the back of her neck." Walker v. State, 546 So.2d 1165, 1166–1167 (Fla.App.1989). It is worth noting that, in 1999, Florida enacted a separate "sudden snatching" statute that proscribes this latter......
-
Robinson v. State, 87686
...652 So.2d at 349; Montsdoca, 84 Fla. 82, 93 So. at 158; S.W. v. State, 513 So.2d 1088, 1090 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987); see also Walker v. State, 546 So.2d 1165, 1167 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); Fla.Std. Jury Instr. (Crim.) 155-56. Due to the nature of the Georgia crime with which Florida's robbery offense......
-
State v. Sein
...rule has been adopted in several other jurisdictions. See, e.g., Richburg v. State, 439 So.2d 788 (Ala.Crim.App.1983); Walker v. State, 546 So.2d 1165 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1989); Commonwealth v. Davis, 7 Mass.App. 9, 385 N.E.2d 278 (1979). See generally Annotation, "Purse Snatching as Robbery o......
-
Merricks v. State, 2D00-789.
...would subject such an error to a harmless error analysis under State v. DiGuilio, 491 So.2d 1129 (Fla.1986). See, e.g., Walker v. State, 546 So.2d 1165 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989). Although many violations of rule 3.410 by court personnel might not survive a DiGuilio harmless error analysis, the err......