This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.
Facts
The case arose from a purse-snatching incident where the Defendant grabbed a purse from the victim as she exited a mall with her daughter. The victim described feeling a shove on her shoulder before the Defendant pulled the purse from her arm and ran away. The Defendant claimed he was intoxicated and did not remember the incident. The victim did not resist, and the purse strap was not broken during the incident (paras 3, 16-18).
Procedural History
- District Court of McKinley County: The Defendant was convicted of robbery. The trial court denied the Defendant's request for a lesser-included-offense instruction for larceny (paras 2, 19).
Parties' Submissions
- Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the trial court erred in refusing to provide a lesser-included-offense instruction for larceny. The Defendant contended that the evidence supported a finding that the force used was insufficient to constitute robbery and that the shove could have been incidental due to his intoxication (paras 2, 6, 16-17).
- Plaintiff-Appellee: Asserted that the force used in the purse-snatching incident was sufficient to constitute robbery and that the trial court properly denied the lesser-included-offense instruction (paras 15, 19).
Legal Issues
- Whether the amount of force used in the purse-snatching incident was sufficient to elevate the offense from larceny to robbery (paras 1, 4).
- Whether the trial court erred in refusing to provide a lesser-included-offense instruction for larceny (paras 2, 5).
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals reversed the Defendant's robbery conviction and remanded the case for a new trial (para 20).
Reasons
Per Pickard J. (Minzner J. and Wechsler J. concurring):
The Court held that robbery requires the use of force sufficient to overcome resistance, whereas larceny involves the taking of property without such force. The Court found that the evidence allowed for a reasonable inference that the shove was incidental and unrelated to the taking of the purse, and that the force used to remove the purse was minimal and insufficient to constitute robbery. The victim did not resist, and the purse strap was not broken, supporting the Defendant's argument for a lesser-included-offense instruction. The trial court's failure to provide this instruction warranted reversal and a new trial (paras 6-18).
The Court also rejected the State's argument that the issue was not properly preserved, noting that the Defendant had tendered correct written instructions and sufficiently alerted the trial court to the issue (para 19).