- Which issue is most significant in deciding whether D committed robbery?
Answer: Whether the shove occurred during the taking or only after the wallet had been taken.
Robbery is larceny from a person's person or presence accomplished by force or intimidation. The critical question is timing: the force must be used to accomplish the taking, not merely after the taking is complete.
Here, D removed V's wallet from V's jacket while V stood at the bar. At that moment, D gained dominion over the wallet, so the taking was likely complete before V grabbed D's arm. If the shove happened only after the wallet had already been taken, D committed larceny plus a battery, not robbery. That is why "whether the shove occurred during the taking or only after the wallet had been taken" is the most significant issue.
"Whether D had decided to keep the wallet before V grabbed his arm" matters for larcenous intent, but it does not resolve whether force accompanied the taking. "Whether the wallet was in V's possession when D first picked it up" is not the real fight here—the wallet was obviously in V's jacket and thus on V's person. "Whether V suffered a physical injury requiring medical care" is a trap: robbery does not require serious injury, and even a shove can supply the required force if used at the right time.
Study tip: on robbery questions, first find the moment the taking became complete, then check whether any force or threat happened before or during that moment. Force used only to escape after the taking generally makes it larceny, not robbery.
- Under Section 18-443, is Daniel guilty of robbery?
Answer: Yes, because Daniel took the coat from Alicia's presence and then used the knife threat to retain the coat while still in immediate flight.
Whenever a robbery question involves force after the initial theft, focus on the statutory definition: robbery continues through "immediate flight" so long as the defendant uses force or threats to keep the property before reaching temporary safety.
Daniel completed a larceny when he took the coat, but the statute punishes force or threats used "in immediate flight" to retain possession. The coat was in Alicia's presence because she was about three feet away, saw the taking, and chased him; and the knife threat caused her to stop. Under subsection (b), holding out a knife is a threat of imminent physical force even without physical contact. Since Daniel threatened Alicia in the parking lot before driving away, he had not yet reached a place of temporary safety, so the threat occurred during immediate flight and he is guilty of robbery.
The wrong choices miss key points. "The larceny was complete before Daniel displayed the knife" incorrectly treats the taking and immediate flight as separate crimes rather than one robbery. "Displaying a knife without physical contact is only intimidation" ignores subsection (b), which expressly treats that display as a threat. And "any later force or threat used to keep stolen property is robbery, even after temporary safety" overstates the statute—subsection (d) excludes threats made after reaching a place of temporary safety, but Daniel had not reached one yet.
Study tip: on robbery questions, circle the timeline: taking → force/threat → place of temporary safety. If the threat occurs before the defendant reaches safety, it's robbery.
- Which issue is most significant in deciding whether D's threat can support a conviction for robbery of W?
Answer: Whether a threat to harm a third person can place the victim in fear of immediate physical force.
Whenever you see a robbery question, focus on the taking of property from another's person or presence by force or fear. Here the taking element is not the real problem: W handed over his wallet, so possession and presence are satisfied. The contested element is intimidation. The pivotal issue is whether a threat to harm a third person can place the victim in fear of immediate physical force. Robbery does not require the threat be directed at the victim personally; if W reasonably believed V would be stabbed unless W surrendered the wallet, W was placed in fear of immediate force, and that fear induced the surrender. Thus the threat can support a robbery conviction.
The other choices miss this central point. Whether D actually intended to carry out the threat is not an element of robbery: the force/fear element is judged by the victim's reasonable apprehension, not the defendant's sincerity; an empty threat can still rob. Whether the wallet was taken from W's person or presence is not significant because W, standing next to D and V, handed it over under threat. Whether V and W were close enough for D to carry out the threat might matter to whether the fear of immediate harm was reasonable, but it is secondary — it does not resolve whether third-party threats legally suffice.
Strategy: On robbery questions, isolate the force/fear element from the defendant's intent. Ask whether the victim's fear was reasonable under the circumstances, including threats to a third person who controls the property. If yes, robbery can be supported even though the threat was aimed at someone else.
- Which issue is most significant in deciding whether the cash was taken from V's person or presence?
Answer: Whether the cash was in V's immediate control when D took it.
Robbery is larceny from another's person or presence accomplished by force or fear. Whenever you see "presence" in a robbery question, focus on the victim's immediate control over the property—not on the exact moment the force occurred. Here, D's knife threat was continuous: it forced V to walk to the bedroom, open the safe, and hand over the cash. The cash was within V's immediate control the entire time, so the most significant issue is whether the cash was in V's immediate control when D took it.
The other choices miss that core issue. Whether V reasonably feared immediate harm addresses the force-or-fear element, but the real question is about the property's location and control—and the fear here was clearly reasonable. Whether V voluntarily opened the safe is irrelevant because a threat of force negates genuine voluntariness. Whether D used force before or after the cash was handed over also does not decide presence: force used at the beginning of a continuous transaction can satisfy robbery, even if the property is surrendered later. Property need not be on V's body to be in his presence; it is enough if it is under his control in the same place.
Study tip: when analyzing robbery, separate the elements—taking, from person or presence, by force or fear—and for "presence" ask simply: "Did the victim have immediate control over the property?" That question prevents timing and consent traps.
- Should the court instruct the jury that Monroe is entitled to the affirmative defense?
Answer: No, because the defense applies only to the recovery of specific property and expressly does not apply to force used to collect a debt, which is what Monroe used force to do.
Whenever you see an affirmative-defense question involving a claimed property right, focus first on the exact scope of the statute: what property is protected, and what exceptions limit the defense. Here, the statute allows force only to recover specific property that the defendant honestly and reasonably believed belonged to him. Monroe did not seek a particular item: he demanded $10,000 in cash from a safe to satisfy what he thought Liu owed him from an oral agreement. That is force used to collect a debt or to obtain money as compensation for a claimed obligation, which the statute expressly excludes. Since his claim falls inside that exception, the court should not instruct the jury that Monroe is entitled to the defense.
The choice saying Monroe lacked intent to steal because he honestly believed Liu owed him misses the statute's dual requirements: his belief was not reasonable, and the defense is not simply another way of saying no intent; it is an affirmative defense with its own limits. The choice saying the statute does not require the claimed obligation to be reasonable is flatly wrong—the statute requires honest and reasonable belief, and it also expressly rejects debt-collection force. Finally, the choice blaming the stun gun as a deadly weapon misstates the law: the statute contains no categorical weapons bar; force just must not be disproportionate, and the real reason the defense fails is the debt, not the weapon. Remember: read a statute's exceptions before applying its grant—here, "specific property" and "not a debt" are gatekeepers.
- Which issue is most significant in determining whether D had the mental state required for robbery?
Answer: Whether D honestly believed he was entitled to take the bicycle.
Whenever you see robbery, remember it is larceny plus force: the prosecution must prove both an intent to permanently deprive the owner of property and the use of force or intimidation. The mental state at issue is the intent to steal, so focus on what was going on in D's mind when he took the bicycle.
The key question is whether D honestly believed he was entitled to take it. A person who retrieves what he genuinely believes is his own property lacks the intent to steal. Even though the bicycle actually belonged to V, D's honest belief that it was his negates the specific intent required for robbery. That is why this issue is most significant.
The other choices target different problems. "Whether V's scrape was serious enough to count as physical harm" concerns the injury or force element, not D's mental state. Similarly, "whether D used more force than was necessary to recover the bicycle" might matter for whether force was excessive or whether he committed assault and battery, but it does not prove an intent to steal. "Whether V had bought the bicycle in good faith from the pawn shop" addresses ownership history and V's status as a bona fide purchaser, but D's mental state is judged from his own perspective, not from V's title.
On exam day, when a robbery question turns on "mental state," immediately ask: did the defendant believe the property was his? Honest claim of right defeats the specific intent to steal, even if the belief is mistaken.
- Should the court grant the motion?
Answer: No, because the shoving occurred during Dane's immediate flight from the theft, and the statute expressly treats that period as part of the course of the theft.
Whenever you see a robbery question, first check when the force occurred relative to the theft. Robbery is not limited to the moment property is first taken; under this statute, "in the course of committing a theft" expressly includes immediate flight after the attempt or commission. That timing is the whole key here.
Dane had already concealed and exited the store, but he had not reached a place of temporary safety. The shoving happened in the parking lot while he was fleeing with the bottle, so it was during "immediate flight." The statute treats that as part of the same course of the theft. Therefore, the force was used to prevent the guard from overcoming Dane's carrying away of the property, which satisfies the robbery statute.
The first wrong answer says the theft was complete and Dane had exclusive control before the shove, but that ignores the statute's explicit immediate-flight language. The second wrong answer says the guard was not the owner and force was not used to compel the owner, but the statute protects "another person," not just the owner, and force during flight can qualify. The fourth wrong answer is too broad: not any force against someone attempting to recover property is robbery; the force must occur in the course of the theft and be intended to overcome resistance.
On exam day, scan robbery statutes for the "course of the offense" definition—if it includes immediate flight, the force can happen after the taking and still be robbery.
- Should Nate be convicted of robbery?
Answer: No, because the force was used solely to injure Vic, and Nate's intent to take the watch was formed only after Vic was unconscious.
Whenever you see a robbery question, the core issue is the link between the force and the taking. Force alone isn't enough—robbery requires force or intimidation used for the purpose of obtaining or retaining the property, or overcoming resistance to the taking.
Here, Nate's punch was meant only to hurt Vic. The state conceded that, and Nate only decided to take the watch after Vic was unconscious. Under State v. Ellison, force used for another purpose followed by an independent decision to take property does not become force in the commission of a larceny. So the correct result is no conviction for robbery: the force and the theft were not connected by the required intent.
The first wrong answer—"yes, because force and taking occurred in the same encounter"—ignores the required purpose of the force. The second wrong answer—"yes, because the force and taking were one continuous course"—makes the same mistake; temporal proximity cannot replace the intent requirement. The third wrong answer—"no, because robbery cannot be based on a taking from an unconscious person"—is too absolute. If Nate had knocked Vic out specifically to take the watch, that would be robbery; the problem isn't unconsciousness, it's the timing of intent.
Your study tip: on robbery questions, always ask "when was the intent to take formed?" If it existed before or during the force, robbery is possible. If it formed only after the force ended, you likely have battery plus larceny—not robbery.
- Which of the following is the court most likely to conclude?
Answer: Penn is guilty, because the snatching caused bodily injury and the statute therefore treats the snatching as force even if Penn did not intend the injury.
Whenever you see a robbery question, first check how the statute defines "force." Many jurisdictions distinguish a mere snatching from force sufficient for robbery, and this statute does exactly that: a snatching is not force unless the owner resists or it causes bodily injury.
Here, Penn grabbed Jewel's purse, the strap broke, she fell, and she suffered a concussion. That bodily injury makes the snatching "force" under Section 318's special definition, even though Penn did not intend to hurt her. Robbery's intent requirement is the intent to deprive the owner of property — which Penn admitted — not an intent to cause injury. So the court should find him guilty.
The wrong answers misunderstand the statute. "Any intentional snatching … is force" overstates the rule, because the statute explicitly excludes simple snatchings unless one of the two conditions is met. "Jewel did not have time to consciously decide to resist" misses the point: even if there was no conscious resistance, the injury itself satisfies the force element. And "Penn did not intend to hurt Jewel and did not threaten her" ignores that the statute treats injury-causing snatching as force without requiring a threat or intent to injure.
Study tip: when a statute defines a term, apply its words precisely — look for "unless" clauses and alternative conditions that expand liability.
- Which issue is most significant in evaluating whether L's conduct constitutes robbery?
Answer: Whether L's threatened physical harm was immediate or only future.
When you see a robbery question, start with the elements: a taking of property from another's person or presence, by force or intimidation, with intent to permanently deprive. The crucial phrase is "force or intimidation"—robbery requires a threat of immediate physical harm. Here, L threatened to have his cousin break D's legs "tomorrow," which is future harm. That pushes the case away from robbery and toward extortion or threats. Therefore, the most significant issue is whether L's threatened physical harm was immediate or only future.
The other choices are distractions. Whether D actually believed L would carry out the threat speaks to D's fear, but even a genuinely believed threat of future harm does not satisfy robbery's immediacy requirement. Whether D's cash was taken from D's person or presence is a required element, but it is not the contested issue—D handed the cash over on the street, so presence is satisfied. Whether L intended to share the money with his cousin is irrelevant; an intent to keep the money is not needed for robbery, and sharing would not negate liability.
Study tip: on robbery questions, classify the threat timing first. Immediate threat = robbery; future threat = extortion. Remember: robbery requires "now," extortion permits "later."
- Is the prosecution correct?
Answer: Yes, because the revolver was a firearm, and a firearm is a deadly weapon even if unloaded and inoperable.
Whenever a statute defines its terms, your job is to apply that definition exactly—not your intuition or the victim's state of mind. Here, the robbery statute says a "deadly weapon" includes a "firearm," and then defines a firearm as a weapon designed to expel a projectile by explosive action "whether or not it is loaded or in operating condition." Because Rex's revolver is a genuine firearm under that definition, the prosecution is correct: it is a deadly weapon even though unloaded and broken.
The choice that says the teller's reasonable belief controls is wrong because first-degree robbery here depends on the statutory definition of a deadly weapon, not on victim apprehension. Likewise, a choice saying the revolver was not capable of causing death or serious bodily injury is wrong—the statute expressly makes operability irrelevant for firearms. Finally, the choice that calls the revolver a "nonfunctional object" or "apparent firearm" misses the key point: the revolver is an actual firearm, not a mere lookalike, and the statute treats actual firearms as deadly weapons regardless of condition.
Your takeaway: when a question provides statutory definitions, read for phrases like "whether or not" and "in the manner used or intended." They are deliberate and will override ordinary assumptions.
- If Marcus is charged with common-law robbery, which question is most important in determining whether he is guilty?
Answer: Whether Marcus formed the intent to take the wallet only after he had shoved Ava.
Whenever you see a robbery question, recall that common-law robbery is larceny from a person by force or intimidation. The critical issue is the concurrence of the intent to steal and the use of force: the force must be used to accomplish the taking.
Here, Marcus shoved Ava, she fell and lost consciousness, and only then did he remove her wallet and cash. If Marcus formed the intent to take the wallet only after shoving Ava, then the force was not used to complete the theft—the taking would be larceny (or larceny from the person), not robbery. But if he intended to steal before or during the shove, the force was part of the robbery. That is why whether he formed the intent only after the shove is the most important question.
The amount of force used is not key: even unnecessary or excessive force does not, by itself, make the taking robbery if there was no intent to steal at the time. Whether the wallet was in Ava's possession or merely within her presence is also not decisive, because common-law robbery can take property from a victim's presence, not just from their body. And whether Ava was aware of the removal is irrelevant—robbery can be committed against an unconscious victim; force can substitute for awareness.
On the exam, isolate the sequence: if violence precedes and is independent of the theft, suspect larceny; if force and intent to steal coincide, it is robbery.
