Also known as: mugged · mug · mugger · street robbery · robbery
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
A criminal taking of personal property from another by force or intimidation. The act satisfies the elements of robbery when the force overcomes resistance or creates an immediate threat of serious injury and the property is taken from the victim's presence with intent to deprive permanently.
Meredith Maxwell was walking home when Marcus Mitchell grabbed her purse strap and yanked it hard enough to pull her off balance. Mitchell fled with the purse containing her wallet. The force used to overcome Maxwell's resistance satisfied the taking element of the offense.
Matthew Martinez approached Miranda Morales on a subway platform and demanded her phone while displaying a knife. Morales surrendered the phone. The threat of immediate serious injury during the theft placed the conduct within the statutory definition of robbery.
Maurice Marshall was acquitted of mugging one victim when the jury found the identification evidence insufficient. The state then sought to prosecute him for mugging a second victim from the same incident. Collateral estoppel prevented the second prosecution because the identity issue had been finally determined.
Michelle Murphy and an accomplice committed a mugging that resulted in the victim's death from a blow to the head. The prosecution relied on the presumption that extreme indifference to human life exists when death occurs during the commission of robbery. The jury could therefore find murder without separate proof of recklessness.
Marcus Mitchell received a life sentence without parole after a series of muggings that involved no violence beyond the takings themselves. The court examined whether the sentence was grossly disproportionate to the offenses under the Eighth Amendment. The analysis focused on the gravity of the crimes and the harshness of the penalty.
In 1964, 1966, and 1969 Jerry Helm was convicted in South Dakota of third-degree burglary. In 1972 he was convicted of obtaining money under false pretenses, in 1973 of grand larceny, and in 1975 of third-offense driving while intoxicated. All six offenses were nonviolent and alcohol contributed to each. In 1979 Helm was charged with uttering a no-account check for $100. He told the trial court he had been drinking in Sioux Falls, ended up in Rapid City with more money than he started with, and did not remember the incident, then pleaded guilty. Because he had three prior felony convictions in addition to the principal felony, the South Dakota Circuit Court sentenced him to life imprisonment without possibility of parole under the recidivist statute. The South Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the sentence in a 3-2 decision. After Helm served two years, he asked the Governor to commute the sentence so he could become eligible for parole after serving three-fourths of a fixed term; the Governor denied the request in May 1981. Helm filed a habeas corpus petition in the United States District Court for the District of South Dakota, which denied relief. The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reversed. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to consider the Eighth Amendment question.
View caseMeredith Maxwell gave a statement to police admitting her role in a mugging and naming Matthew Martinez as the person who wielded the weapon. At their joint trial the prosecution sought to introduce the statement against Martinez. The confrontation clause barred its use without an opportunity for cross-examination.
In June 1966, petitioner George William Bruton and codefendant Evans were jointly tried before a jury in the District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri. They faced a federal charge of armed postal robbery under 18 U.S.C. § 2114. A postal inspector testified that during two interrogations at the St. Louis city jail on April 11 and May 4, 1966, Evans orally confessed that he and Bruton had committed the robbery and that Evans had an accomplice whom he would not name. The interrogations followed an April 8 confession Evans gave to local police officers without warnings while held on state charges. Both defendants appealed to the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. That court set aside Evans’ conviction on the ground that his oral confessions should not have been received in evidence against him. However, the court affirmed Bruton’s conviction because the trial judge had instructed the jury that Evans’ confession was competent evidence only against Evans and inadmissible hearsay against Bruton. The Supreme Court granted certiorari. The trial had begun one week after Miranda v. Arizona, and the Court of Appeals applied that decision to hold the confessions tainted. On retrial Evans was acquitted. The Solicitor General later submitted a memorandum stating that in light of the record the judgment as to Bruton should be reversed and the cause remanded for a new trial.
View caseForce must be sufficient to overcome the victim's resistance or the threat must create fear of immediate serious injury. Mere snatching without resistance may fall short of robbery.
A death occurring during the commission of a mugging triggers a presumption of extreme indifference to human life under the Model Penal Code. The prosecution need not prove separate recklessness.
Collateral estoppel embodied in the Double Jeopardy Clause prevents retrial when identity was the decisive issue in the first acquittal.
…defendant’s constitutional rights were not violated. In Vignera v. New York , the defendant was arrested in connection with a robbery. He was taken to the 17th Detective Squad headquarters in Manhattan where he was interrogated for several hours. He was not advised of his right to counsel. A detective testified that the…