Robbery in the first degree

Case Notes Act of violence or intimidation need not be done for very purpose of taking the property to constitute robbery. 56 H. 343, 537 P.2d 724 (1975). In absence of evidence that gun was not loaded or capable of being fired, an inference exists that it was capable of inflicting the harm which the robber threatened and was a dangerous instrument within this section. 57 H. 150, 552 P.2d 357 (1976). Whether instrument used in robbery is a dangerous instrument is a question of fact for jury to resolve. 57 H. 365, 556 P.2d 569 (1976). Assault by person armed with dangerous instrument with intent to rob is within subsection (1)(b)(i). 59 H. 148, 577 P.2d 793 (1978). Accomplice. 62 H. 25, 608 P.2d 855 (1980). Applicability of claim of right defense. 62 H. 25, 608 P.2d 855 (1980). An unloaded gun as a dangerous instrument. 63 H. 405, 629 P.2d 626 (1981). Threatened use of force against several persons did not constitute more than one count of robbery. 65 H. 156, 648 P.2d 197 (1982); 4 H. App. 573, 670 P.2d 1290 (1983). Firearms are per se dangerous weapons. 69 H. 44, 731 P.2d 1261 (1987). Jury instruction should have stated that if jury found defendant committed attempted murder and robbery concurrently, it need not render two verdicts. 70 H. 618, 780 P.2d 1097 (1989). Defendant convicted of both kidnapping and robbery because crimes did not occur concurrently. 71 H. 46, 781 P.2d 662 (1989). Trial judge erred in refusing to instruct jury regarding the possible merger of the robbery and kidnapping counts against defendant. 77 H. 17, 881 P.2d 504 (1994). First degree burglary not an included offense of first degree robbery. 81 H. 309, 916 P.2d 1210 (1996). Theft and attempted theft, regardless of degree, are included offenses of first degree robbery. 81 H. 309, 916 P.2d 1210 (1996). A victim's awareness of the theft is a necessary element of robbery pursuant to subsection (1)(b)(ii). 86 H. 37, 947 P.2d 349 (1997). Where defendant's conviction and sentence under this section was an included offense under §134-6(a) and defendant's convictions under both §134-4(a) and this section violated §701-109(1)(a), defendant's conviction and sentence under this section reversed. 91 H. 33, 979 P.2d 1059 (1999). Where defendant's convictions were premised upon the use of "any firearm" and language of indictments and trial court's instructions "to wit, a semiautomatic pistol" did not alter the statutory elements of §§134-6, 134-7, or this section, trial court's error of not providing definition of "semiautomatic firearm" did not warrant reversal of convictions of first degree robbery, carrying or use of firearm in commission of separate felony, or felon in possession of firearm. 91 H. 33, 979 P.2d 1059 (1999). As subsection (1)(b)(i) does not require that a defendant use force in order to compel another person to acquiesce in his or her taking of property, it is not an element of the offense that the person against whom the defendant is alleged to have used force, or the owner of the property, be aware of the theft; thus, trial court did not err in failing to instruct the jury that the "victim" of the theft--whether the person against whom force was used or the owner of the property taken--must be aware of the theft. 99 H. 390, 56 P.3d 692 (2002). Whether a loaded pellet pistol is a dangerous instrument is a question of fact. 1 H. App. 481, 620 P.2d 1087 (1980). Where defendant did not use force in the course of committing theft, no first degree robbery committed within meaning of paragraph (1)(b)(i). 9 H. App. 263, 833 P.2d 902 (1992). Instructions constituted plain error, where (1) court instructed jury that a knife is a dangerous instrument; and (2) instruction defined the imminent use of force. 9 H. App. 628, 859 P.2d 925 (1993). Where there was substantial evidence that the manner in which the "little black stick" was used was capable of producing serious bodily injury as defined under §707-700, minor was properly convicted as an accomplice to robbery in the first degree under this section. 107 H. 439 (App.), 114 P.3d 945 (2005). As robbery in the first degree under subsection (1)(b)(ii) does not include the element required under §708-810(1)(c) for burglary in the first degree of intentionally entering or remaining unlawfully in a building, it was possible for defendant to commit robbery in the first degree without committing burglary in the first degree; thus the crimes are not included in each other and do not merge. 109 H. 327 (App.), 126 P.3d 370 (2005). There was sufficient evidence to convict defendant of robbery in the first degree under this section where, inter alia, victim testified at trial that when defendant's brother put a knife to victim's neck and asked for victim's money, defendant held down victim's hands, and that both asked the victim where the victim's money was. 123 H. 456 (App.), 235 P.3d 1168 (2010). Where jury convicted defendant of robbery in the first degree under this section, error by circuit court when it failed to instruct jury on robbery in the second degree under §708-841 and theft in the fourth degree under §708-833, which were included offenses of robbery in the first degree, was harmless. 123 H. 456 (App.), 235 P.3d 1168 (2010).