Jewelry Store Robbery is Still Robbery Even if it Occurred With the Owner’s Consent

In 2003, a jewelry store in San Francisco was robbed. At trial the defendants argued that they could not be charged with robbery because they took the jewelry from the store with the consent of the owner. Their theory was that the owner wanted to get the insurance money for the “stolen” jewelry and therefore, gave the defendants permission to break into the store and take the jewelry which was worth over 4 million dollars.

Under Penal Code Section 211, robbery requires the specific intent to deprive the victim of his or her property permanently by force or fear without consent. Moreover, one who has a right to possession as against a thief is considered the owner of that property with regards to the robbery. Here, the court held that although there may not have been a robbery against the store owner (assuming that the defendants had the owner’s consent to take the jewelry), there was still a robbery against the employees. The employees did not give consent to the taking of the property and their “possession rights” were superior to those of the defendants because the jewelry was under their control at the time it was taken. The taking was felonious, even if the actual owner was in league with the perpetrators.

In cases like these, it is important to have an experienced criminal defense firm on your side. The crime of robbery has many elements, each of which must be proved by the district attorney. Wallin & Klarich has over 40 years of experience dealing with robbery and burglary crimes. Our attorneys are very familiar with the elements of the crime and how to construct sophisticated legal arguments around them. If you or a loved one has been charged with burglary or robbery call our experienced criminal defense attorney today. Our attorneys can be contacted by phone at 1-888-749-0034.

Email Us