California Robbery defenses – California penal code 211

Lack of Intent

If you have been charged with robbery in California, you can raise the defense of lack of intent. The defendants intent to take the property must have been formed before or during the time (he/she) used force or fear. If the defendant did not form this required intent until after using the force or fear, then (he/she) did not commit robbery.

To have the requisite intent for theft, the defendant must either intend to deprive the owner permanently or to deprive the owner of a major portion of the property’s value or enjoyment.

Requisite Fear

One of the requirements to prove the defendant guilty of robbery is that the defendant must have used force or fear to take the property or to prevent the person from resisting. If the prosecution is claiming that the defendant used fear, the victim must have actually been afraid. See People v. Cuevas (2001) 89 Cal.App.4^th 689, 698. If the prosecution cannot prove that the victim was actually afraid, the requisite fear was not met for the crime of robbery to be committed. However, even when the victim testifies that he or she was not afraid, circumstantial evidence may satisfy the element of fear.

No Taking

There must be a taking for the crime of robbery to be committed. To constitute a taking, the property need only be moved a small distance. If there was no taking, the defendant has a viable defense against the charges of robbery.

Claim of Right

If a person honestly believed that he or she had a right to the property even if that belief is mistaken or unreasonable, such belief is a defense to robbery.

Requisite Force

The force required for robbery must be more than the incidental touching necessary to take the property. Force employed by a pickpocket would be insufficient to constitute a robbery, but it can be considered a different theft crime.