11.3 Robbery & Extortion

Robbery & Extortion

Exam Snapshot: Robbery, extortion, and receiving stolen property frequently test the subtle boundaries of physical force, temporal proximity, and mental culpability. The FYLSE repeatedly probes whether a pickpocketing encounter escalates into robbery through victim resistance or flight, whether coercive demands involve immediate threats of bodily harm (robbery) versus future or reputational exposure (extortion), and the doctrinal consequences when undercover law enforcement officers deploy recovered stolen goods in a sting operation.

---

1. Common Law Robbery: Elements & Aggravated Larceny Framework

The Compound Nature of Robbery

Common law robbery is an aggravated species of larceny. It combines property deprivation with a personal assault or battery. Robbery is defined as the trespassory taking and carrying away of the personal property of another from the person or presence of the victim, by force or intimidation, with the specific intent to permanently deprive the owner thereof.

[ Larceny Elements (Taking + Asportation + Property of Another + Animus Furandi) ]
                                      +
[ From Person or Presence ] + [ By Force or Intimidation (Fear) ]
                                      =
                                 ROBBERY

The Essential Dependency on Larceny

Because robbery is an aggravated form of larceny, every single element of common law larceny must be satisfied. If any foundational larceny element fails, a robbery charge cannot stand:

• Claim of Right: If a defendant uses physical force to recover a specific chattel that the defendant honestly believes belongs to them, the defendant lacks animus furandi. In a traditional common-law jurisdiction, this honest claim of right negates specific intent, barring a conviction for robbery (though the defendant remains guilty of assault and battery).
• Asportation: There must be some movement of the property. If the defendant threatens a victim at gunpoint, commands the victim to hand over a wallet, but the victim drops the wallet and the defendant flees without touching or moving it, the crime is attempted robbery, not completed robbery.

The "Person or Presence" Requirement

The stolen property must be taken either directly from the victim's physical person or from within the victim's immediate "presence":

• From the Person: Property attached to, held by, or integrated with the victim's physical body (e.g., clothing, jewelry worn on the wrist, a purse held in the hand, or a wallet in a pocket).
• From the Presence: The common law defines presence broadly: property is in the victim's presence if it is within the victim's reach, observation, inspection, or immediate control, such that the victim could have prevented the taking or retained possession had force or intimidation not been used.
  • Illustrative Scenarios: Tying up a homeowner in the living room and walking down the hall into the bedroom to steal jewelry; forcing a bank manager at gunpoint in the lobby to provide the combination to a basement vault while an accomplice opens the safe. In both cases, the property was within the victim's legal presence.

---

2. Force or Intimidation: Physical Mechanics & The Timing Rule

Force vs. Stealth: The Pickpocketing Boundary

The line between larceny and robbery is determined by how physical force was applied to effectuate the taking:

• Pure Stealth (Larceny): Secretly lifting a wallet from an unsuspecting victim's trousers, or swiftly slipping a phone out of an unzipped purse without the victim feeling any resistance, is larceny. The mere physical effort required to lift the weight of the property does not constitute force for robbery.
• Resistance and Struggle (Robbery): If the victim becomes aware of the theft and actively resists—such as clutching the purse, pulling back, or struggling over a strap—and the defendant applies physical force to overpower that resistance, the encounter is robbery.
• Breaking Attachments (Robbery): If an item is pinned or securely attached to the victim's person (e.g., ripping a diamond brooch pinned to a lapel, tearing a necklace from a neck, or yanking a purse with sufficient violence to snap a leather shoulder strap), the force required to break the attachment satisfies the force element of robbery.
• Chemical Force: Administering a drug, narcotic, or intoxicant to render the victim unconscious or physically incapacitated prior to taking property constitutes force.

Intimidation (Threat of Immediate Harm)

Where physical violence is absent, intimidation (placing the victim in fear) satisfies the requirement, provided strict criteria are met:

1. Nature of the Threat: The threat must be of immediate death or serious bodily injury.
2. Recipient of the Threat: The threat must be directed against: (a) the victim, (b) a member of the victim's immediate family, or (c) a third person in the victim's immediate presence (e.g., pointing a gun at a customer in a convenience store to force the clerk to surrender cash).
3. Threats Insufficient for Robbery: A threat of future physical violence ("give me $500 now or I will beat you up next weekend") or a threat of property damage ("give me your watch or I will break your car windshield tomorrow") cannot support a robbery conviction; such demands constitute extortion.
4. Apprehension Standard: The victim must subjectively experience fear or apprehension, and the threat must be such that an ordinary, reasonable person under the circumstances would be intimidated.

The Timing of Force: The Modern "Escape Rule"

A major point of contention on the FYLSE is the precise temporal window during which force or fear must be applied:

• Traditional Common Law Rule: Force or intimidation must be applied prior to or contemporaneous with the taking. Under this strict classical view, if a defendant takes an item by stealth without force, and subsequently uses force solely to fend off a pursuing victim and escape, the offense is larceny plus battery, but not robbery.
• Modern Majority & California Rule (Continuous Transaction Doctrine): Under California law (People v. Anderson) and the modern majority rule, robbery is treated as a continuous transaction extending from the initial taking through the completion of asportation to a position of temporary safety. Therefore, force or fear used to retain possession of the property or to accomplish an escape elevates the theft to robbery.

Aggravated (Armed) Robbery

Statutes in all jurisdictions elevate robbery to aggravated or first-degree robbery when the perpetrator is armed with a dangerous or deadly weapon. Two critical bar exam rules apply:

• Simulated Weapons: Where a defendant uses an unloaded firearm, a toy pistol, or keeps a hand concealed in a pocket simulating a gun while verbally threatening to shoot, jurisdictions apply the objective appearance standard: if the victim reasonably believes the defendant is armed with a lethal weapon, the crime constitutes aggravated robbery.
• Accomplice Liability: If two perpetrators agree to commit robbery, and one co-felon unexpectedly brandishes a concealed firearm, all co-conspirators are guilty of aggravated robbery under the doctrine that the use of weapons during robbery is reasonably foreseeable.

---

3. Extortion (Blackmail): Coercion Through Future Threats

Common Law Origin vs. Modern Scope

• Common Law Extortion: At common law, extortion was a narrow misdemeanor committed exclusively by a public official who corruptly demanded or collected an unlawful fee under color of office.
• Modern Statutory Extortion (Blackmail): Modern statutes broadened the offense to apply to all persons. Extortion is defined as obtaining property from another with their coerced consent, induced by the wrongful use of actual or threatened force, fear, or under color of official right.

The Five Categories of Actionable Threats

Modern extortion statutes punish demands for property backed by threats to:

1. Inflict future bodily injury on the victim or another;
2. Cause unlawful damage to property;
3. Accuse the victim or a third person of a criminal offense;
4. Expose an alleged secret, disgrace, or scandalous matter impairing the victim's personal reputation or business standing; or
5. Perform or withhold an official act by a public servant.

Truth of the Accusation is No Defense

Examiners frequently test scenarios where the victim did, in fact, commit the crime or embarrassing act that the defendant threatens to disclose.

• The Rule: The truth or falsity of the underlying accusation is completely irrelevant. An individual who discovers that their employer has been embezzling funds and demands $20,000 in exchange for not reporting the embezzlement to law enforcement is guilty of extortion. The law strictly prohibits monetizing the suppression of criminal justice or leveraging embarrassing secrets for financial extortion.

Doctrinal Comparison: Robbery vs. Extortion

---