Code of Alabama
Ala. Code § 13A-8-40 (2026)
Definitions.
✓ official Alabama Legislature (ALISON) text, current July 2026
(a) The definitions contained in Section 13A-8-1 are applicable to this article unless the context otherwise requires.
(b) “In the course of committing a theft” embraces acts which occur in an attempt to commit or the commission of theft, or in immediate flight after the attempt or commission.
(Acts 1977, No. 607, p. 812, §3301.)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 45
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1981–2026 · leading case: Acres v. State, 548 So. 2d 459 (Ala. Crim. App. 1989).
Acres v. State, 548 So. 2d 459 (Ala. Crim. App. 1989). “The operative words of the current robbery statute are "in the course of committing a theft," which includes an attempted theft, Marvin v.”
People v. Williams, 814 N.W.2d 270 (Mich. 2012). “44 See Alabama—Ala Code 13A-8-40; Alaska—Alas Stat 11.41.”
McWhorter v. State, 781 So. 2d 257 (Ala. Crim. App. 1999). “The operative words of the current robbery statute are "in the course of committing a theft," which includes an attempted theft, Marvin v. State, supra, rather than the common law element of an actual "taking from the person.”
Lee v. State, 898 So. 2d 790 (Ala. Crim. App. 2003). “Code §§ 13A-8-40 through 13A-8-44 (1975) (Commentary), so that not only is the value of the property immaterial, but also the indictment need not allege an actual theft to constitute the offense. The operative words of the current robbery statute are `in the course of committing…”
Woods v. State, 789 So. 2d 896 (Ala. Crim. App. 1999). “The operative words of the current robbery statute are "in the course of committing a theft," which includes an attempted theft, Marvin v.”
Ex parte Willie Conner., 165 So. 3d 556 (Ala. 2014). “"Thus, to be found guilty under these statutes, the force or threat must have been used 'in the course of committing' the theft, which, by statutory definition, § 13A-8-40, 'embraces acts which occur ..”
Bush v. State, 695 So. 2d 70 (Ala. Crim. App. 1996). “However, in determining whether a robbery or an attempted robbery was committed, the important question presented is whether the assailant was, at the time he used force against Dominguez, "in the course of committing a theft.”
Harrison v. State, 869 So. 2d 509 (Ala. Crim. App. 2003). “Code §§ 13A-8-40 through 13A-8-44 (1975) (Commentary), so that not only is the value of the property immaterial, but also the indictment need not allege an actual theft to constitute the offense. The operative words of the current robbery statute are `in the course of committing…”
Windsor v. State, 683 So. 2d 1013 (Ala. Crim. App. 1993). “The operative words of the current robbery statute are `in the course of committing a theft,' which includes an attempted theft, Marvin v.”
Revis v. State, 101 So. 3d 247 (Ala. Crim. App. 2011). “Code [1975,] §§ 13A-8-40 through 13A-8-44 (1975) (Commentary), so that not only is the value of the property immaterial, but also the indictment need not allege an actual theft to constitute the offense.”
Ingram v. State, 878 So. 2d 1208 (Ala. Crim. App. 2003). “The Committee Comments to §§ 13A-8-40 through 13A-8-44, Ala.Code 1975, provide: "There should be no distinction between cases in which force is used to gain possession of another's property and cases in which possession is gained and *1212 then force is used to retain possession.”
Herndon v. State, 563 So. 2d 1065 (Ala. 1990). “See commentary to §§ 13A-8-40 through 13A-8-44. "Deadly weapon" is defined in § 13A-1-2(11) as: "A firearm or anything manifestly designed, made or adapted for the purposes of inflicting death or serious bodily injury, and such term includes, but is not limited to, a pistol,…”
— Ala. Code § 13A-8-40(a) — 3 cases
Saffold v. State, 951 So. 2d 777 (Ala. Crim. App. 2006).
Warren v. State, 35 So. 3d 639 (Ala. 2008).
Newman v. State, 143 So. 3d 746 (Ala. 2013).
— Ala. Code § 13A-8-40(b) — 19 cases
Bush v. State, 695 So. 2d 70 (Ala. Crim. App. 1996). “However, in determining whether a robbery or an attempted robbery was committed, the important question presented is whether the assailant was, at the time he used force against Dominguez, "in the course of committing a theft.”
Dorsey v. State, 881 So. 2d 460 (Ala. Crim. App. 2002).
Casey v. State, 925 So. 2d 1005 (Ala. Crim. App. 2005).
Ingram v. State, 878 So. 2d 1208 (Ala. Crim. App. 2003). “The Committee Comments to §§ 13A-8-40 through 13A-8-44, Ala.Code 1975, provide: "There should be no distinction between cases in which force is used to gain possession of another's property and cases in which possession is gained and *1212 then force is used to retain possession.”
Caine v. State, 453 So. 2d 1081 (Ala. Crim. App. 1984).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.