Bar Exam (Next Generation) Quiz: Robbery

12 questions · exam conditions

0:00

RobberyQuestion 1 of 12

Rex was charged with first-degree robbery. The prosecution conceded that Rex committed robbery when he entered a bank, pointed a revolver at a teller, and demanded cash. The revolver was a genuine firearm designed to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive, but it was unloaded and its firing pin was broken, so it could not fire. The teller believed the revolver was loaded and handed over $4,000. The first-degree robbery statute provides:

"Section 9-1. Robbery in the first degree. A person commits robbery in the first degree when, in the course of committing robbery, the person (1) causes serious bodily injury to another, or (2) is armed with a deadly weapon. 'Deadly weapon' means a firearm or other device capable of causing death or serious bodily injury in the manner used or intended to be used. For purposes of this section, a 'firearm' is a weapon designed to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive, whether or not it is loaded or in operating condition. An object that is not a firearm is not a deadly weapon merely because it appears to be a firearm."

The prosecution argues that Rex is guilty of first-degree robbery because he was armed with a deadly weapon. Is the prosecution correct?

Is the prosecution correct?

Yes, because the teller reasonably believed the revolver could fire, and first-degree robbery is measured by the victim's reasonable apprehension.

Yes, because the revolver was a firearm, and a firearm is a deadly weapon even if unloaded and inoperable.

No, because the revolver could not fire and therefore was not capable of causing death or serious bodily injury in the manner used.

No, because the broken firing pin made the revolver a nonfunctional object, and an apparent firearm is not a deadly weapon unless it is actually capable of firing.

← Back to quizzes

Bar Exam (Next Generation) Quiz

Bar Exam (Next Generation) Quiz: Robbery

Practice Robbery in Bar Exam (Next Generation) with focused quiz questions that help you check what you know, review explanations, and build confidence with test-style prompts.

What this quiz covers

This quiz focuses on Robbery, giving you a quick way to practice the rules, question types, and explanations that matter most for Bar Exam (Next Generation).

How to use this quiz

Try each quiz question before looking at the correct answer. Use the explanations to review missed ideas, then come back to similar questions until the pattern feels familiar.

All questions

Question 1

The prosecution argues that Rex is guilty of first-degree robbery because he was armed with a deadly weapon. Is the prosecution correct?

Is the prosecution correct?

Yes, because the teller reasonably believed the revolver could fire, and first-degree robbery is measured by the victim's reasonable apprehension.
Yes, because the revolver was a firearm, and a firearm is a deadly weapon even if unloaded and inoperable. (correct answer)
No, because the revolver could not fire and therefore was not capable of causing death or serious bodily injury in the manner used.
No, because the broken firing pin made the revolver a nonfunctional object, and an apparent firearm is not a deadly weapon unless it is actually capable of firing.

Explanation: 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.

Question 2

Monroe was charged with robbery. At trial, he testified that after his partnership with Liu ended, he believed—incorrectly and without reasonable basis—that Liu owed him $10,000 from an oral agreement. Monroe went to Liu’s office, pointed a stun gun at Liu, and demanded $10,000 in cash. Liu opened a safe and handed Monroe $10,000 in cash. Monroe admitted he intended to keep the cash but said he used the stun gun only to collect what Liu owed him. The applicable statute provides:

"Section 12. It is an affirmative defense to a charge of robbery if the defendant used force or threatened force solely to recover specific property that the defendant honestly and reasonably believed belonged to the defendant, and the force was not disproportionate to the circumstances. The defense does not apply to force used to collect a debt or to obtain money or other property as compensation for a claimed obligation."

Should the court instruct the jury that Monroe is entitled to the affirmative defense?

Yes, because Monroe honestly believed Liu owed him the money and therefore lacked the intent to steal required for robbery.
Yes, because Monroe was using force only to collect a debt, and the statute does not require that the claimed obligation be reasonable.
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. (correct answer)
No, because the stun gun was a deadly weapon and the affirmative defense is unavailable when the defendant uses any weapon.

Explanation: 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.

Question 3

D approached V and W on a sidewalk. D pointed a knife at V and said, "If either of you moves, I'll stab him." D then turned to W and said, "Now give me your wallet, or I'll cut him." W, standing next to V, handed D his wallet to protect V. D fled. D was charged with robbery of W.

Which issue is most significant in deciding whether D's threat can support a conviction for robbery of W?

Whether a threat to harm a third person can place the victim in fear of immediate physical force. (correct answer)
Whether D actually intended to carry out the threat if W refused.
Whether W's wallet was taken from W's person or presence.
Whether V and W were close enough for D to carry out the threat.

Explanation: 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.

Question 4

D quietly removed V's wallet from the inside pocket of V's jacket while V stood at a bar. As D turned to leave, V grabbed D's arm and said, "That's my wallet." D shoved V to the floor and ran out, keeping the wallet. D was charged with robbery.

Which issue is most significant in deciding whether D committed robbery?

Whether D had decided to keep the wallet before V grabbed his arm.
Whether the wallet was in V's possession when D first picked it up.
Whether the shove occurred during the taking or only after the wallet had been taken. (correct answer)
Whether V suffered a physical injury from the shove that required medical care.

Explanation: 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.

Question 5

L approached D on the street and said, "Give me $5,000 right now, or I will have my cousin break your legs tomorrow." D, believing L would do it, withdrew cash and handed it to L. L was charged with robbery.

Which issue is most significant in evaluating whether L's conduct constitutes robbery?

Whether D actually believed L would have his cousin break D's legs.
Whether L's threatened physical harm was immediate or only future. (correct answer)
Whether D's cash was taken from D's person or presence.
Whether L intended to share the money with his cousin.

Explanation: 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."

Question 6

Detective Voss arrested Dane after a liquor-store incident. At a pretrial hearing, the state offered evidence that Dane put a bottle of whiskey inside his coat, walked past the cash registers without paying, and left the store. A security guard who had watched Dane conceal the bottle followed him into the parking lot and grabbed Dane's arm. Dane twisted free, shoved the guard to the ground, and ran off with the bottle. The guard suffered a bruised shoulder. Dane is charged with robbery under this statute:

Section 242. Robbery. A person commits robbery when, in the course of committing a theft, the person uses or threatens the immediate use of force against another person with intent to prevent or overcome that person's resistance to the taking or carrying away of the property, or to compel the owner or another person to deliver up the property. "In the course of committing a theft" includes an attempt to commit the offense or immediate flight after the attempt or commission.

Dane moves to dismiss, arguing that the theft was complete before he used force. Should the court grant the motion?

Should the court grant the motion?

Yes, because robbery requires that force be used to obtain possession of the property, and Dane had already obtained exclusive control of the bottle before the shoving occurred.
Yes, because the guard was not the owner of the bottle and the force was not used to compel the owner to deliver up the property.
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. (correct answer)
No, because Dane used force against a person who was attempting to recover the property, and any force against a person attempting to recover property during a theft is robbery.

Explanation: 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.

Question 7

D's bicycle had been stolen from his garage. A week later, D saw a bicycle of the same make, color, and with the same custom decal as his stolen bicycle. D stepped in front of the rider, V, grabbed the handlebars, and said, "This is my bike." When V tried to ride away, D pulled V off, causing V to fall and scrape his knee. D rode away on the bicycle. It was later determined that the bicycle was V's, not D's. D was charged with robbery.

Which issue is most significant in determining whether D had the mental state required for robbery?

Whether V's scrape was serious enough to count as physical harm.
Whether D honestly believed he was entitled to take the bicycle. (correct answer)
Whether V had bought the bicycle in good faith from the pawn shop.
Whether D used more force than was necessary to recover the bicycle.

Explanation: 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.

Question 8

After an angry argument, Marcus shoved Ava, causing her to fall and strike her head. Ava was knocked unconscious. Marcus then removed Ava's wallet from her jacket pocket, took the cash, and left. Marcus later admitted that he intended to keep the cash.

If Marcus is charged with common-law robbery, which question is most important in determining whether he is guilty?

Whether Marcus used more force than was necessary to knock Ava unconscious.
Whether the wallet was in Ava's possession or only within her presence when Marcus removed it.
Whether Ava was aware that Marcus was removing the wallet from her jacket pocket.
Whether Marcus formed the intent to take the wallet only after he had shoved Ava. (correct answer)

Explanation: 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.

Question 9

Penn is charged with robbery under Section 318. At trial, the state presented evidence that Jewel was standing at a bus stop holding her purse by its straps. Penn ran up from behind, grabbed the purse, and pulled it. Jewel did not release the straps; the strap broke, Jewel fell backward and hit her head on the curb, and Penn ran away with the purse. Jewel suffered a concussion. Penn admitted he intended to keep the purse but said he did not intend to hurt Jewel and thought she would let go. Section 318 provides:

"A person commits robbery if, with intent to deprive the owner of property, the person takes property from the person or presence of the owner (a) by using force against the owner or another, or (b) by threatening the immediate use of force. 'Force' includes any physical force used to overcome resistance, but does not include a mere snatching of property from the owner's grasp unless the owner resists or the snatching causes bodily injury to the owner."

Which of the following is the court most likely to conclude?

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. (correct answer)
Penn is guilty, because any intentional snatching of property from a person's grasp is force within the meaning of the statute.
Penn is not guilty, because the snatching was accomplished by a single sudden pull and Jewel did not have time to consciously decide to resist.
Penn is not guilty, because Penn did not intend to hurt Jewel and did not threaten her before taking the purse.

Explanation: 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.

Question 10

Nate was charged with robbery after an incident at a bar. The evidence showed that Nate argued with Vic and punched Vic in the face, knocking him unconscious. Nate testified, and the state did not dispute, that when he threw the punch he intended only to hurt Vic. After Vic fell, Nate noticed Vic's watch, decided to take it, removed it from Vic's wrist, and left. Nate concedes that taking the watch was larceny. The governing decision, State v. Ellison, holds:

"Robbery requires that the force or intimidation be used for the purpose of obtaining or retaining possession of the property or preventing or overcoming resistance to the taking. Force used for another purpose, followed by an independent decision to take property, does not become force in the commission of a larceny."

Should Nate be convicted of robbery?

Yes, because Nate used force against Vic and then took property from Vic's person during the same encounter, and the taking occurred while Vic was unable to resist.
Yes, because Nate's larceny of the watch occurred immediately after his battery of Vic, and the force and taking were part of one continuous course of conduct.
No, because robbery cannot be based on a taking from an unconscious person, even if the defendant knocked the victim unconscious.
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. (correct answer)

Explanation: 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.

Question 11

D entered V's home, put a knife to V's throat in the living room, and demanded money. V said his cash was in a bedroom safe. D forced V to walk to the bedroom, open the safe, and hand over the cash. D then fled. D was charged with robbery.

Which issue is most significant in deciding whether the cash was taken from V's person or presence?

Whether V reasonably feared immediate harm while walking to the bedroom.
Whether V voluntarily opened the safe and gave D the cash.
Whether D used force before or after the cash was handed over.
Whether the cash was in V's immediate control when D took it. (correct answer)

Explanation: 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.

Question 12

Daniel was in a department store and decided he could resell a coat he saw on a display rack. He grabbed the coat from the rack, concealed it under his jacket, and ran toward the exit without paying. Alicia, the only store employee in that department, was standing about three feet away, saw Daniel grab the coat, and chased him through the store and into the parking lot while yelling at him to stop. As Daniel reached his car, Alicia caught up and reached for the coat. Daniel pulled out an eight-inch hunting knife, held it up where Alicia could see it, and said, 'Back off, or I will cut you.' Alicia stopped, and Daniel got into his car and drove away.

Section 18-443 of the State Criminal Code provides in relevant part:

(a) A person commits robbery if, with the intent permanently to deprive the owner of property, the person takes property from the person or presence of another and, in the course of the taking or in immediate flight from the taking, uses force or threatens the imminent use of physical force against a person to obtain or retain possession of the property.

(b) Threatening the imminent use of physical force includes holding out an object that reasonably appears to be a deadly weapon, whether or not the object is loaded, operable, or capable of inflicting death or serious injury.

(c) Property is in the 'presence' of another if it is so within the other person's reach, sight, or control that the other person could have attempted to keep possession of it if the force or threat had not been used.

(d) Immediate flight ends when the person reaches a place of temporary safety. The use of force or a threat of force after reaching a place of temporary safety is not a violation of this section.

Under Section 18-443, is Daniel guilty of robbery?

No, because the larceny was complete before Daniel displayed the knife, and force used after the taking cannot make the crime robbery.
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. (correct answer)
No, because displaying a knife without physical contact is only intimidation, and the statute requires force or an actual attempt to use force.
Yes, because the statute treats any later force or threat used to keep stolen property as robbery, even if the thief has reached a place of temporary safety.

Explanation: 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.