Ark. Code Ann. § 5-12-102 (2026)

Research References

Ark. L. Rev.

Bank Not Liable for Attack on ATM Patron: Boren v. Worthen National Bank of Arkansas, 50 Ark. L. Rev. 521.

ALR.

Robbery: Identification of victim as person named in indictment or information. 4 A.L.R.6th 577.

U. Ark. Little Rock L.J.

Davis, Survey of Arkansas Law: Criminal Law, 2 U. Ark. Little Rock L.J. 193.

Survey — Criminal Law, 10 U. Ark. Little Rock L.J. 559.

Case Notes

Constitutionality.

This section is not unconstitutionally vague as it clearly states that a defendant is responsible for the use of force on anyone either before, during, or after the theft. Becker v. State, 298 Ark. 438, 768 S.W.2d 527 (1989).

In General.

Under prior law, definition of robbery put the primary emphasis upon the taking of property, but the code redefines robbery to shift the focus of the offense from the taking of property to the threat of physical harm to the victim. Jarrett v. State, 265 Ark. 662, 580 S.W.2d 460 (1979).

Section has redefined robbery so that focus of robbery has shifted from the taking of property to threat of physical harm to victim; one consequence of definition is that offense is complete when physical force is threatened and no transfer of property need take place. Birchett v. State, 294 Ark. 176, 741 S.W.2d 267 (1987); McKinzy v. State, 313 Ark. 334, 853 S.W.2d 888 (1993).

The crime of robbery is serious, and violence is generally involved. Myers v. State, 317 Ark. 70, 876 S.W.2d 246 (1994).

Purpose.

The clear legislative intent was to define robbery so as to cover situations where persons who have committed a theft choose to employ force to avoid arrest. Williams v. State, 11 Ark. App. 11, 665 S.W.2d 299 (1984).

Accomplice.

If the evidence showed that defendant aided or advised another in planning or committing a robbery but that the other person committed the greater inclusive offense of aggravated robbery, defendant's liability would be limited to the lesser included offense of robbery. Savannah v. State, 7 Ark. App. 161, 645 S.W.2d 694 (1983).

Substantial evidence supported defendant's convictions for aggravated robbery, kidnapping, aggravated assault, theft of property, unlawful discharge of a firearm from a vehicle, and fleeing because while the state did not prove that defendant actually entered a bank, it did provide substantial evidence that he was the driver of the getaway car and thus was an accomplice of the two men who committed the aggravated robbery, kidnapping, and theft of property; while defendant did not personally shoot at an officer's vehicle, his conduct of driving the fleeing vehicle while another person in the car fired the shots sufficiently implicated him as an accomplice to unlawfully discharging a firearm from a vehicle. Barber v. State, 2010 Ark. App. 210, 374 S.W.3d 709 (2010).

There was sufficient evidence tending to connect defendant to an aggravated robbery and thus to corroborate accomplice testimony because surveillance video established the commission of the crime and an officer testified that defendant matched the description of a robber in the video based on his height and that the officer confirmed the truth of identifying information from a non-accomplice. Smith v. State, 2012 Ark. App. 534, 423 S.W.3d 624 (2012).

Assistance of Counsel.

Where the state's proof of guilt was overwhelming, despite the defense testimony that the defendant was simply standing quietly in the store when the two employees seized her, the defense counsel's failure to object to the bailiff's testimony that a codefendant had fled four years earlier when placed under arrest did not substantially prejudice the defendant and did not amount to ineffective assistance of counsel. Williams v. State, 289 Ark. 567, 712 S.W.2d 924 (1986).

Double Jeopardy.

A former acquittal on a bank robbery charge was no bar to prosecution for burglarizing a bank building where the offenses were separate and distinct and not dependent upon the same evidence to support the conviction. Whitted v. State, 187 Ark. 285, 59 S.W.2d 597 (1933) (decision under prior law).

The aggravating circumstance providing that the murder was committed for the purpose of avoiding or preventing an arrest, under § 5-4-604(5), does not unconstitutionally duplicate an element of the underlying felony of robbery under this section; since avoiding arrest is not necessarily an invariable motivation for killing, the aggravating circumstance of avoiding arrest does not as a matter of logic necessarily duplicate an element of the underlying capital crime of robbery. Whitmore v. Lockhart, 834 F. Supp. 1105 (E.D. Ark. 1992), aff'd, 8 F.3d 614 (8th Cir. Ark. 1993).

Elements.

To constitute robbery the taking had to be either directly from the person or in the presence of the party robbed, and had to be by force or a previous putting in fear. Clary v. State, 33 Ark. 561 (1878) (decision under prior law).

The elements of the crime of robbery are (1) intent to commit theft and (2) the employment of or threat to employ physical force. Thomas v. State, 262 Ark. 79, 553 S.W.2d 32 (1977).

Stealing hubcaps from a parked car is not robbery. Wesley v. State, 265 Ark. 406, 578 S.W.2d 895 (1979).

A person commits robbery if he employes physical force in attempting to commit a theft or if he employs physical force in resisting apprehension immediately after committing a theft. Thompson v. State, 284 Ark. 403, 682 S.W.2d 742 (1985), overruled in part, McCoy v. State, 347 Ark. 913, 69 S.W.3d 430 (2002).

Where the defendant held the victim at gunpoint while he inspected her jewelry, the jury way justified in concluding that the defendant intended to commit theft. Kinsey v. State, 290 Ark. 4, 716 S.W.2d 188 (1986).

The motive of pecuniary gain is an element of robbery even though it does not appear in the literal language of this section. Perry v. Lockhart, 871 F.2d 1384 (8th Cir. Ark. 1989).

A transfer of property is essential for the completion of the crime of theft; on the other hand no transfer of property is required for the completion of the crime of robbery, only physical force or the threat of physical force is necessary. Robinson v. State, 303 Ark. 351, 797 S.W.2d 425 (1990), appeal dismissed, Robinson v. Norris, — Ark. —, — S.W.3d —, 2008 Ark. LEXIS 21 (Jan. 10, 2008).

The robbery and murder did not have to occur within a brief interval of time to support a capital murder conviction. Findley v. State, 307 Ark. 53, 818 S.W.2d 242 (1991).

Nothing in this section or § 5-12-103 requires that the representation that the offender is armed must be made to the victim of the theft. Lowe v. State, 36 Ark. App. 85, 819 S.W.2d 23 (1991).

Robbery does not require that each victim, or even one victim, be deprived of property, but has been redefined by shifting the emphasis from the taking of property to the threat, express or implied, of physical harm to the victim. Harris v. State, 308 Ark. 150, 823 S.W.2d 860 (1992).

In defendant's attempted capital murder case, the state presented substantial evidence of defendant's intent to commit theft because there was the victim's testimony, in which she stated that defendant told her that he was going to rob her, there was the fact that two twenty-dollar bills and some quarters were missing from the store after the attack, and there was also defendant's own videotaped statement in which he admitted to taking money from the cash register. Goodwin v. State, 373 Ark. 53, 281 S.W.3d 258 (2008).

Evidence.

Evidence held sufficient to establish that the defendant was guilty of larceny (now theft) and not robbery. Bowlin v. State, 72 Ark. 530, 81 S.W. 838 (1904) (decision under prior law).

Evidence held sufficient to support a conviction. Shell v. State, 84 Ark. 344, 105 S.W. 575 (1907); Jenkins v. State, 191 Ark. 507, 87 S.W.2d 60 (1935); Trotter v. State, 215 Ark. 121, 219 S.W.2d 636 (1949); Taylor v. State, 230 Ark. 809, 327 S.W.2d 6 (1959); Norman v. State, 236 Ark. 476, 366 S.W.2d 891 (1963), cert. denied, Norman v. Arkansas, 375 U.S. 933, 84 S. Ct. 337, 11 L. Ed. 2d 265 (1963); Hurst v. State, 251 Ark. 40, 470 S.W.2d 815 (1971); Guffey v. State, 253 Ark. 720, 488 S.W.2d 28 (1972); Lloyd v. State, 253 Ark. 839, 489 S.W.2d 240 (1973); Graves v. State, 256 Ark. 117, 505 S.W.2d 748 (1974), overruled in part, Gardner v. State, 296 Ark. 41, 754 S.W.2d 518 (1988); Ferguson v. State, 257 Ark. 1036, 521 S.W.2d 546 (1975) (preceding decisions under prior law); Wilson v. State, 262 Ark. 339, 556 S.W.2d 657 (1977); Phillips v. State, 271 Ark. 96, 607 S.W.2d 664 (1980); Lane v. State, 288 Ark. 175, 702 S.W.2d 806 (1986); Phillips v. State, 17 Ark. App. 86, 703 S.W.2d 471 (1986); Birchett v. State, 289 Ark. 16, 708 S.W.2d 625 (1986); Dees v. State, 30 Ark. App. 124, 783 S.W.2d 372 (1990); Beard v. State, 306 Ark. 546, 816 S.W.2d 860 (1991); Nooner v. State, 322 Ark. 87, 907 S.W.2d 677 (1995), cert. denied, Nooner v. Arkansas, 517 U.S. 1143, 116 S. Ct. 1436, 134 L. Ed. 2d 558 (1996); Whitfield v. State, 70 Ark. App. 451, 20 S.W.3d 422 (2000).

Defendant's conduct did not indicate that defendant was renouncing an intent to commit theft. White v. State, 271 Ark. 692, 610 S.W.2d 266 (1981).

Evidence held sufficient to find that the only purpose defendants could have had was to rob the victim. Johnson v. State, 276 Ark. 56, 632 S.W.2d 416 (1982); Becker v. Lockhart, 971 F.2d 172 (8th Cir. 1992), rehearing denied, — F.2d —, 1992 U.S. App. LEXIS 27816 (8th Cir. Oct. 23, 1992), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 830, 114 S. Ct. 98 (1993).

Evidence held sufficient to establish a theft and the use of force immediately after the theft to resist arrest. Becker v. State, 298 Ark. 438, 768 S.W.2d 527 (1989); Becker v. Lockhart, 971 F.2d 172 (8th Cir. 1992), rehearing denied, — F.2d —, 1992 U.S. App. LEXIS 27816 (8th Cir. Oct. 23, 1992), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 830, 114 S. Ct. 98 (1993).

The only reasonable inference to be drawn was that defendant intended to take property from the victim where he approached the victim and said, “This is a robbery,” appeared to have a pistol in his pocket and had it pointed at her, and when she screamed for help, he ran away. Fletcher v. State, 306 Ark. 541, 816 S.W.2d 592 (1991).

The evidence was sufficient to establish that the threat of a deadly weapon was made immediately after the theft to resist apprehension or arrest, where the theft, flight, struggle, and apprehension were accomplished in a matter of minutes without any significant intervening event. Lowe v. State, 36 Ark. App. 85, 819 S.W.2d 23 (1991).

Victim's pretrial and in-court identifications of the defendant were unequivocal and clearly constituted sufficient evidence for the jury to conclude without having to speculate that defendant was the perpetrator. Stipes v. State, 315 Ark. 719, 870 S.W.2d 388 (1994).

Identification testimony and the physical evidence accidentally dropped at the scene by the defendant were admissible, and evidence was sufficient to sustain the conviction of rape, burglary, and robbery. Monk v. State, 320 Ark. 189, 895 S.W.2d 904 (1995).

Substantial evidence supported a conviction for aggravated robbery, notwithstanding that the defendant never produced a weapon in the victim's view, where (1) he represented that he had a knife and would cut the victim's throat unless she complied with his demands, (2) he admitted to having a butcher knife while committing the robbery, and (3) a butcher knife was recovered from the defendant. Skiver v. State, 336 Ark. 86, 983 S.W.2d 931 (1999).

Evidence was sufficient to show that the defendant used force for the purpose of committing a theft where he had stolen property from the victim only hours earlier, voiced his intent to return to her home to get more money, and then followed through by going to her home during the early hours of morning where he physically attacked the victim when she stepped outside, and stopped the attack only when her daughter made her presence known by screaming. Pond v. State, 69 Ark. App. 346, 14 S.W.3d 525 (2000).

Evidence was sufficient to convict defendant of aggravated robbery and theft where the record showed that after the victim was shot, the defendant removed money from the dead man's body, helped to hide the body, hid the dead man's truck, and threw the dead man's wallet and keys away. Grillot v. State, 353 Ark. 294, 107 S.W.3d 136 (2003).

Victim's testimony was sufficient in and of itself to sustain defendant's convictions for aggravated robbery and battery in the first degree because the victim was cross-examined at length by defense counsel regarding the inconsistencies in his testimony but remained adamant that defendant was the person who had come into his house and told him to “break yourself”; in addition, the victim also identified defendant in a photo lineup and identified him again at trial. Mosley v. State, 87 Ark. App. 127, 189 S.W.3d 456 (2004).

Jury could infer that defendant shot the victim in order to steal drugs and money from the victim, based on defendant's own account of what occurred; thus, there was substantial evidence that defendant shot and killed the victim during the course of, and in furtherance of, an aggravated robbery. Harper v. State, 359 Ark. 142, 194 S.W.3d 730 (2004).

Evidence was sufficient to sustain defendant's aggravated robbery conviction where defendant admitted to being in the vehicle when the crimes occurred, the evidence showed that he was the driver, defendant waited while an accomplice fired shots at the van's driver, and defendant retrieved the bank bag. Jefferson v. State, 359 Ark. 454, 198 S.W.3d 527 (2004).

Sufficient evidence existed to convict defendant of robbery where defendant struck a store employee after the employee caught him shoplifting and told defendant a report had to be filed; defendant used physical force to avoid apprehension. McElyea v. State, 360 Ark. 229, 200 S.W.3d 881 (2005).

Trial court did not err by denying defendant's motion for a directed verdict on his capital murder conviction because the evidence was sufficient to support defendant's conviction of the underlying felony, aggravated robbery, even after eliminating the testimony of one of defendant's accomplices. Evidence showed that: (1) defendant had the purpose of committing a theft with the use of physical force, as he and three other individuals went to a witness's house to acquire ammunition for their firearm; (2) the fourth individual testified that defendant and three men arrived at his trailer where defendant displayed a gun, and that he provided ammunition for the gun; (3) a second witness, one of the three men who accompanied defendant, testified that he heard two gunshots fired after the two other men left the victim's apartment after the struggle between defendant and the victim ensued; and (4) the chief medical examiner testified that the victim died from a gunshot wound. Gardner v. State, 362 Ark. 413, 208 S.W.3d 774 (2006).

There was sufficient evidence to support convictions for aggravated robbery and capital murder based on defendant's admission that she held the victim's hands down while he was beaten inside an apartment during an alleged robbery and the testimony of an accomplice waiting outside; the accomplice testimony was sufficiently corroborated. Johnson v. State, 366 Ark. 8, 233 S.W.3d 123 (2006).

There was sufficient evidence to support a conviction where evidence showed that two murders were committed during a robbery, defendant made inculpatory statements regarding the robbery, the victims had a large amount of cash, and defendant made calls to their phone on the day of the shooting. Harris v. State, 366 Ark. 190, 234 S.W.3d 273 (2006).

Evidence was sufficient to sustain defendant's convictions for aggravated robbery, residential burglary, and felony theft of property because an accomplice testified that he and defendant had a purpose of committing theft when they went to the victim's apartment, defendant used physical force upon the victim, defendant was armed with a deadly weapon, and a witness testified that she observed defendant carry out a television and load it into the car. Navarro v. State, 371 Ark. 179, 264 S.W.3d 530 (2007).

Substantial evidence indicated that defendant was armed with a deadly weapon for the purpose of committing theft, and defendant was part of a plan to take the victim's money; there did not have to be an actual transfer of property to take place for the offense of aggravated robbery to be complete, and defendant and another clearly followed through with the plan, whether or not they verbally acknowledged their agreement at the time the plan was conceived. Moore v. State, 372 Ark. 579, 279 S.W.3d 69 (2008).

Denial of defendant's motion for directed verdict on capital murder and aggravated murder charges under this section and §§ 5-10-101 and 5-12-103 was proper as the evidence showed that defendant held a pistol, a deadly weapon, and that he committed theft while armed with the pistol; the evidence also showed that he caused the death of the victim in immediate flight from the aggravated robbery under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life. Flowers v. State, 373 Ark. 119, 282 S.W.3d 790 (2008).

Defendant's convictions for two counts of aggravated robbery were proper under subsection (a) of this section and § 5-12-103(a) because a neighbor verified that one of the intruders had a gun; the victim told officers that the intruders hid their guns in the closet, where two guns were found; and both intruders were charged in the same instrument, implicating accomplice liability. That provided substantial evidence to support the finding that the intruders at minimum represented by word or conduct that they were armed as a threat in order to commit the theft. Hinton v. State, 2010 Ark. App. 341 (2010).

Evidence was sufficient to sustain defendant's convictions for capital murder and aggravated robbery because defendant drove his accomplice to the victim's house, defendant admitted to hitting the victim over the head, and the evidence illustrated he wanted to harm the victim because he did it again after he stated that the victim was not fazed. Additionally, the victim's wallet was taken from the house. Laswell v. State, 2012 Ark. 201, 404 S.W.3d 818 (2012).

Force or Intimidation.

Snatching money from another's hand without force was not robbery. Routt v. State, 61 Ark. 594, 34 S.W. 262 (1896); Coon v. State, 109 Ark. 346, 160 S.W. 226 (1913) (preceding decisions under prior law).

It was not essential that both force and intimidation be employed to constitute robbery. Jenkins v. State, 191 Ark. 507, 87 S.W.2d 60 (1935) (decision under prior law).

Where the statutes made intimidation or putting in fear the person robbed an element of the offense of robbery, it was proper that the state of mind of the person robbed be proved in order to show that all the elements of the offense were present. Miller v. State, 230 Ark. 352, 322 S.W.2d 685 (1959) (decision under prior law).

If either force or intimidation was employed to obtain money from an elderly couple the requisites of the former robbery statute were met and taking into consideration the age of the couple, the intimidation necessary to complete the offense was not nearly so great as would be necessary to complete the offense if the victims were younger people. Miller v. State, 230 Ark. 352, 322 S.W.2d 685 (1959) (decision under prior law).

Testimony held sufficient to show intimidation. Ferguson v. State, 257 Ark. 1036, 521 S.W.2d 546 (1975) (decision under prior law).

While mere snatching of money or goods from the hand of another was not robbery, where there was a struggle for the possession before the taking was accomplished and the owner of the property was struck in the face there was evidence of robbery. Parker v. State, 258 Ark. 880, 529 S.W.2d 860 (1975) (decision under prior law).

Evidence held sufficient to show that defendant employed physical force against the victim. Fairchild v. State, 269 Ark. 273, 600 S.W.2d 16 (1980).

Evidence held sufficient to find that the force exerted was sufficient to accomplish its purpose and amounted to robbery. Turner v. State, 270 Ark. 969, 606 S.W.2d 762 (1980).

Evidence held sufficient to present a factual question for the jury concerning whether the resistance to apprehension was close enough to the taking to establish robbery. Williams v. State, 11 Ark. App. 11, 665 S.W.2d 299 (1984).

As to intent, this section requires that the purpose of employing force must be to commit a theft or to resist apprehension immediately thereafter. Robinson v. State, 317 Ark. 17, 875 S.W.2d 837 (1994).

Indictment or Information.

For cases discussing the sufficiency of indictments or informations, see Clary v. State, 33 Ark. 561 (1878); Young v. State, 50 Ark. 501, 8 S.W. 828 (1888); Boles v. State, 58 Ark. 35, 22 S.W. 887 (1893); Keeton v. State, 70 Ark. 163, 66 S.W. 645 (1902); Traver v. State, 72 Ark. 524, 81 S.W. 615 (1904); Green v. State, 185 Ark. 1098, 51 S.W.2d 511 (1932); Nobles v. State, 189 Ark. 472, 74 S.W.2d 247 (1934); Haynie v. State, 257 Ark. 542, 518 S.W.2d 492 (1975); Ferguson v. State, 257 Ark. 1036, 521 S.W.2d 546 (1975) (preceding decisions under prior law).

On remand of appellant's conviction for committing a hotel robbery, the state was permitted to file an amended information adding the allegation of habitual-offender status; while appellant was awaiting a new trial he was convicted of separate charges in a related case, thus, based on his habitual-offender status, appellant received a sentence of life imprisonment for the aggravated-robbery conviction. Townsend v. State, 355 Ark. 248, 134 S.W.3d 545 (2003).

Jurisdiction.

Where force was initiated in this state, extension of criminal activity into another state did not deprive courts in this state of jurisdiction to try robbery charge. Thomas v. State, 262 Ark. 79, 553 S.W.2d 32 (1977).

Lesser Included Offenses.

Where the testimony was in conflict as to whether a defendant was armed at the time of the robbery, the court in a prosecution for aggravated robbery should have instructed the jury on the lesser included offense of robbery. Hamilton v. State, 262 Ark. 366, 556 S.W.2d 884 (1977).

Robbery is a lesser included offense of aggravated robbery. Lovelace v. State, 276 Ark. 463, 637 S.W.2d 548 (1982).

In an aggravated robbery prosecution, refusal to instruct on the lesser included offense of robbery held proper. Lovelace v. State, 276 Ark. 463, 637 S.W.2d 548 (1982).

Conspiracy to commit robbery is not a lesser included offense within the definition of aggravated robbery. Savannah v. State, 7 Ark. App. 161, 645 S.W.2d 694 (1983).

Even though robbery is a lesser included offense of aggravated robbery, the trial judge was obligated to give the lesser instruction only if there was a rational basis for acquitting defendant of aggravated robbery and convicting him of the lesser offense of robbery. Savannah v. State, 7 Ark. App. 161, 645 S.W.2d 694 (1983).

Where defendant was charged as accomplice in aggravated robbery, trial court erred in failure to give instruction on lesser included offense of robbery held error. Savannah v. State, 7 Ark. App. 161, 645 S.W.2d 694 (1983).

Disorderly conduct, assault, and battery are not lesser included offenses of robbery but are simply offenses of a different class. Williams v. State, 11 Ark. App. 11, 665 S.W.2d 299 (1984).

Assault is not a lesser included offense of robbery; therefore, the trial court in robbery prosecution correctly refused requested instruction on assault in the first degree. Williams v. State, 11 Ark. App. 11, 665 S.W.2d 299 (1984).

Theft is not a lesser offense included within robbery. Thompson v. State, 284 Ark. 403, 682 S.W.2d 742 (1985), overruled in part, McCoy v. State, 347 Ark. 913, 69 S.W.3d 430 (2002).

Battery is not a lesser included offense of robbery. Robinson v. State, 14 Ark. App. 38, 684 S.W.2d 824 (1985).

Where the prosecution charged attempted robbery rather than aggravated robbery as the underlying offense to a capital murder charge and defendant was convicted of aggravated robbery, the defendant's conviction must be reduced to simple robbery—the crime which the state used to support the capital murder charge. Mullins v. State, 303 Ark. 695, 799 S.W.2d 550 (1990).

Where there was no proof presented that defendant did not have a weapon during the aggravated robbery, it was not error for the trial court to refuse to instruct on the lesser included offenses of robbery and aggravated assault. Tarkington v. State, 313 Ark. 399, 855 S.W.2d 306 (1993).

Where jury was entitled to believe defendant's assertion that she did not know her boyfriend was carrying a gun, while disbelieving her claim that she did not assist in the commission of the robbery, the trial court erred in refusing to give an instruction on robbery in defendant's trial for aggravated robbery. Waggle v. State, 50 Ark. App. 198, 901 S.W.2d 862 (1995).

In defendant's capital murder and aggravated robbery case, a court did not err by failing to instruct the jury on the lesser included offense of robbery where there was no rational basis for such instruction; defendant pushed into the home, demanded money, and pulled out a pair of broken scissors to enforce his demand, and he later murdered the victim and inflicted serious physical harm on another victim. Isom v. State, 356 Ark. 156, 148 S.W.3d 257 (2004), cert. denied, Isom v. Arkansas, 543 U.S. 865, 125 S. Ct. 204 (2004).

Trial court did not err in failing to give a jury an instruction on simple robbery, which was a lesser-included offense of aggravated robbery, because defendant essentially argued that defendant did not commit any offense at all; hence, there was no rational basis for the giving of a lesser-included offense instruction. Nickelson v. State, 2012 Ark. App. 363, 417 S.W.3d 214 (2012), appeal dismissed, 2013 Ark. 252 (2013).

Counsel complied with Ark. Sup. Ct. & Ct. App. R. 4-3(k), and appellant's appeal from his aggravated robbery conviction and sentence lacked merit because (1) the sufficiency of the evidence was not preserved for appellate review as counsel's motion for directed verdict failed to state with specificity the deficiency in the state's evidence, in contravention of Ark. R. Crim. P. 33.1; (2) there was no merit to appellant's chain-of-custody argument to the items found in his car pursuant to a search warrant as there was no evidence of tampering presented, and there was testimony that the items were logged into evidence and remained in the evidence room until the trial; (3) it was undisputed that an armed robbery took place under § 5-12-103(a)(1), so it was not an error to refuse to give an instruction on the lesser-included offense of robbery under subsection (a) of this section; and (4) appellant could not raise an ineffective assistance of counsel claim or challenge the qualifications of jurors for the first time on appeal. Mace v. State, 2012 Ark. App. 420, 421 S.W.3d 335 (2012).

Jury instruction on the lesser-included offense of attempted aggravated robbery was not warranted because there was no evidence of the offense of attempt under § 5-3-201(a)(2); when appellant stormed out of a retail store's stockroom brandishing a gun and pointing it employees, he actually completed the offense of aggravated robbery. Thomas v. State, 2012 Ark. App. 466, 422 S.W.3d 217 (2012).

Theft is not a lesser-included offense of robbery pursuant to § 5-1-110(b). The wrongful appropriation of the victim's property is an essential element of theft, while robbery can be committed without actually taking the property of another, since robbery is defined as employing or threatening to employ physical force upon another with the purpose of committing a felony or misdemeanor theft or resisting apprehension immediately thereafter. Cartwright v. State, 2016 Ark. App. 425, 501 S.W.3d 849 (2016).

Ownership.

A violent taking of property in the presence of others, under claim of title, did not constitute the crime of robbery. Brown v. State, 28 Ark. 126 (1873) (decision under prior law).

Ownership of the property taken could be alleged in the information or subsequent bill of particulars either in the real owner or in the person in whose possession the property was at the time taken. Powell v. State, 251 Ark. 46, 471 S.W.2d 333 (1971), cert. denied, Powell v. Arkansas, 406 U.S. 917, 92 S. Ct. 1763 (1972) (decision under prior law).

Evidence was sufficient to support defendant's conviction of aggravated robbery under this section where defendant pointed a pistol at the victim and demanded that the victim repay a two dollar debt because the intent to collect a debt at gunpoint did not negate the necessary intent to steal under § 5-36-103(a)(1). Because defendant could not trace his ownership to the specific bills in the victim's possession, the victim, and not defendant, was the owner of the money in his possession, and it was theft to take it from him. Heard v. State, 2009 Ark. 546, 354 S.W.3d 49 (2009).

Physical Force.

Striking a security officer with enough force to knock him to the ground constitutes physical force as defined in this section. Scott v. State, 27 Ark. App. 1, 764 S.W.2d 625 (1989).

Testimony by store employees that they ran after and tackled defendant after seeing him take an item from the store without paying for it implied that some type of physical force was used against them, even if one of the employees was the person who used physical force first, and was sufficient to prove the use of physical force element. Payne v. State, 86 Ark. App. 59, 159 S.W.3d 804 (2004).

Evidence was sufficient to prove the theft element of aggravated robbery; evidence showed that defendant used physical force to at least temporarily deprive victim of her car, which was sufficient proof. Winston v. State, 368 Ark. 105, 243 S.W.3d 304 (2006).

Directed verdict was properly denied in a case involving robbery and capital murder because defendant shot the victim while he slept with the intent of taking some of his belongings. Therefore, evidence presented to the jury showed that defendant employed or threatened to immediately employ physical force upon the victim with the purpose of committing a felony or misdemeanor theft. Terry v. State, 371 Ark. 50, 263 S.W.3d 528 (2007).

Sentence.

Where there was sufficient evidence to support a conviction of robbery, but insufficient evidence to sustain a conviction of aggravated robbery, the court modified the judgment below by reducing it to the lesser included offense of robbery and imposing the minimum prison sentence prescribed by law for a conviction of robbery. Fairchild v. State, 269 Ark. 273, 600 S.W.2d 16 (1980).

Sentence of imprisonment and fine held within the range of sentences for a defendant convicted of a Class B felony who had previous felony convictions. Davis v. State, 275 Ark. 264, 630 S.W.2d 1 (1982).

Robbery in Arkansas qualifies as a crime of violence under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 4B1.2(a)(1), and attempted robbery qualifies under application note 1 to § 4B1.2. United States v. Sawyer, 588 F.3d 548 (8th Cir. 2009).

Where defendant pled guilty to armed bank robbery and had a prior state conviction for attempted robbery, the career offender provision of U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 4B1.1 was properly applied in calculating defendant's advisory Guidelines sentencing range because robbery in Arkansas qualified as a crime of violence under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 4B1.2(a)(1), and attempted robbery qualified under § 4B1.2, application n. 1. United States v. Sawyer, 588 F.3d 548 (8th Cir. 2009).

Sufficiency of Evidence.

Court rejected defendant's argument that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction of felony robbery under subsection (a) of this section because the state failed to prove that he used physical force to take the victim's purse where the state presented no evidence of a struggle or fight, of more force than necessary to pull the purse from the victim's arm, or of his touching any part of the victim's body. Because the victim testified that defendant snatched her purse from her, causing pain and bruises to her hand and right arm, the jury could have inferred from this evidence that injury was done, that force was used in taking the purse, and that bodily impact occurred sufficient to meet the statutory requirement of physical force. Banks v. State, 2009 Ark. App. 633 (2009).

As the victim exited her truck, a man grabbed her by her neck, put a gun to her head, and asked for her keys; she was forced into her residence and heard a shotgun fire as the man drove away. The police spotted the truck traveling at a high rate of speed apparently in flight from the scene of the crime and defendant's fingerprint was recovered from the doors; the evidence was not sufficient to sustain defendant's conviction for aggravated robbery, theft of property, and criminal mischief because there was no way to determine when defendant touched the truck. Turner v. State, 103 Ark. App. 248, 288 S.W.3d 669 (2008), review denied, — Ark. —, — S.W.3d —, 2009 Ark. LEXIS 514 (Jan. 22, 2009).

Evidence was sufficient to support defendant's conviction for robbery in violation of this section because he beat and kicked the victim, took his cell phone and wallet, asked for additional money, threatened to shoot him, and ran away; the probable consequence of those actions was that the victim would be deprived of his property, and even though defendant asserted that his motive was only “belittlement” and physical injury, the jury could have inferred from the events in the case that the statutory intent to commit a theft was satisfied. Sims v. State, 2010 Ark. App. 133 (2010).

Appellant's convictions for aggravated robbery, aggravated residential burglary, and misdemeanor fleeing were affirmed where a witness testified that appellant pointed a sawed-off shotgun at his head, which would necessarily constitute proof that appellant was “armed with a deadly weapon”; the testimony of one eyewitness was sufficient to sustain a conviction. Riley v. State, 2011 Ark. App. 511, 385 S.W.3d 355 (2011).

There was sufficient evidence to sustain an aggravated robbery conviction under this section because there was a verbal representation in a note; there was no requirement that the threat of physical harm be made directly or indirectly, only that physical force be immediately threatened, however the threat was communicated. Walden v. State, 2012 Ark. App. 307, 419 S.W.3d 739 (2012).

There was substantial evidence to support convictions for two aggravated-robbery counts based on accomplice liability where defendant was in a car moving away from the robbery scene, he was found with roughly the same amount of money that was stolen in the robbery, and he used a false name. Moreover, one of the vehicle's passengers was wearing clothing that matched the description of the perpetrator. Davis v. State, 2013 Ark. App. 658, 430 S.W.3d 190 (2013).

Evidence was sufficient to support defendant's robbery conviction, given that he pulled up to the victim in a car and asked if he could use the victim's phone, and when the victim refused, defendant punched him in the face, took the phone, and drove away; the victim positively identified defendant, who handed the phone over to the officers, and the circuit court was free to believe the testimony of the victim and not that of defendant, who claimed he was just borrowing the phone. Muhammad v. State, 2016 Ark. App. 285, 494 S.W.3d 440 (2016).

There was sufficient evidence to support the allegations that defendant committed robbery. In addition to the fact that defendant was wearing a black long-sleeved shirt, which was what the victim testified the robber wore, the exact denominations of bills taken from a bank bag were in defendant's pocket, and the exact denominations of wrapped coins, which were identified by the victim as being wrapped in the manner she wrapped coins, were in a backpack defendant was carrying. Smith v. State, 2016 Ark. App. 421, 501 S.W.3d 836 (2016).

There was more than substantial evidence to support defendant's conviction for robbery, where several witnesses testified that defendant shoved a store employee out of the way and swung at another store employee while trying to flee with a money bag. Cartwright v. State, 2016 Ark. App. 425, 501 S.W.3d 849 (2016).

Substantial evidence supported defendant's capital murder conviction under § 5-10-101, as there was sufficient evidence that defendant committed the underlying felony of attempted robbery under § 5-3-201(a)(2) and this section; defendant approached the victim with a weapon, demanded his phone, and pointed the weapon at the victim at point-blank range. Hicks v. State, 2017 Ark. 262, 526 S.W.3d 831 (2017).

Evidence was sufficient to sustain defendant's robbery conviction where an undercover security guard testified that defendant placed a bottle of laundry detergent inside her flat purse, the purse bulged, defendant did not pay for the detergent before walking out of the store, she shoved the guard when he confronted her in the parking lot, and she fled the scene abruptly when confronted by loss-prevention officers. Horton v. State, 2017 Ark. App. 481, 530 S.W.3d 880 (2017).

Evidence was sufficient to support defendant's robbery conviction because the hotel employee positively identified defendant as the person who robbed the hotel, defendant's cell phone was placed in a triangular area near the robbery around the time of the robbery, and he was stopped by officers not far from the robbery just minutes after it had taken place. Lacefield v. State, 2018 Ark. App. 481, 559 S.W.3d 311 (2018).

Evidence was sufficient to support defendant's robbery conviction because the store employee positively identified defendant's photo as the person who robbed the store, defendant's cell phone was near the store around the time of the robbery, as well as around the time of other sightings of the “bearded bandit”. Lacefield v. State, 2018 Ark. App. 481, 559 S.W.3d 311 (2018).

Based on the circumstantial evidence introduced in a bench trial, including evidence defendant lured the victim to a park and shot him while he was keeping an eye on a man in the park and defendant was arrested a few days after the shooting next to a car with items stolen from the victim's truck, the trial court could have reasonably inferred that defendant shot the victim with the intent to take his truck and thus was guilty of aggravated robbery. Campbell v. State, 2019 Ark. App. 297, 577 S.W.3d 729 (2019).

Theft Distinguished.

Robbery was a compound or aggravated larceny (now theft); it was the stealing from a person with the element of assault, or putting in fear, superadded. Haley v. State, 49 Ark. 147, 4 S.W. 746 (1887) (decision under prior law).

Threat of Force.

There is no requirement in this section that the threat of physical harm to an individual be made directly or individually, only that physical force be immediately threatened, however that threat may be communicated. Robinson v. State, 317 Ark. 17, 875 S.W.2d 837 (1994).

Although defendant shot the victim three times as the result of an inadvertent collision with the victim as the victim attempted to run, actual physical force was not required to convict defendant of aggravated robbery. His possession of a gun and his threat to employ the gun were sufficient to support his conviction under this section and § 5-12-103. Ali v. State, 2011 Ark. App. 758 (2011).

Value.

Defendants were properly convicted of robbery even though they abandoned their attempt to rob the store and the only thing of value they obtained was of minimal value. White v. State, 226 Ark. 368, 289 S.W.2d 900 (1956) (decision under prior law).

Robbery may occur irrespective of the value of the property obtained or, indeed, whether any transfer of property takes place. Novak v. State, 287 Ark. 271, 698 S.W.2d 499 (1985).

Cited: McDonald v. State, 266 Ark. 56, 582 S.W.2d 272 (1979); Ellis v. State, 270 Ark. 243, 603 S.W.2d 891 (1980); Beed v. State, 271 Ark. 526, 609 S.W.2d 898 (1980); Brewer v. State, 271 Ark. 810, 611 S.W.2d 179 (1981); Swaite v. State, 272 Ark. 128, 612 S.W.2d 307 (1981); Sutton v. State, 1 Ark. App. 58, 613 S.W.2d 399 (1981); Harshaw v. State, 275 Ark. 481, 631 S.W.2d 300 (1982); Hill v. State, 276 Ark. 300, 634 S.W.2d 120 (1982); Knight v. State, 277 Ark. 213, 640 S.W.2d 442 (1982); Harmon v. State, 277 Ark. 265, 641 S.W.2d 21 (1982); Mitchell v. State, 281 Ark. 112, 661 S.W.2d 390 (1983); Jones v. State, 282 Ark. 56, 665 S.W.2d 876 (1984); Walters v. State, 283 Ark. 243, 675 S.W.2d 364 (1984); Hickey v. State, 14 Ark. App. 50, 684 S.W.2d 830 (1985); Collins v. Lockhart, 771 F.2d 1580 (8th Cir. 1985); Davis v. State, 284 Ark. 557, 683 S.W.2d 926 (1985); Richard v. State, 286 Ark. 410, 691 S.W.2d 872 (1985); Glisson v. State, 286 Ark. 329, 692 S.W.2d 227 (1985); Ruiz v. Lockhart, 806 F.2d 158 (8th Cir. 1986); Graham v. State, 290 Ark. 107, 717 S.W.2d 203 (1986); Robinson v. Lockhart, 823 F.2d 210 (8th Cir. 1987); Bishop v. State, 294 Ark. 303, 742 S.W.2d 911 (1988); Wilson v. State, 25 Ark. App. 126, 753 S.W.2d 287 (1988); United States v. Brittman, 687 F. Supp. 1329 (E.D. Ark. 1988); Lilly v. State, 300 Ark. 53, 776 S.W.2d 347 (1989); Remeta v. State, 300 Ark. 92, 777 S.W.2d 833 (1989); Bussard v. State, 300 Ark. 174, 778 S.W.2d 213 (1989); Wilford v. State, 300 Ark. 185, 777 S.W.2d 855 (1989); Findley v. State, 300 Ark. 265, 778 S.W.2d 624 (1989); Wainwright v. State, 302 Ark. 371, 790 S.W.2d 420 (1990); United States v. Brittman, 750 F. Supp. 388 (E.D. Ark. 1990); Pomerleau v. State, 303 Ark. 275, 795 S.W.2d 929 (1990); Hill v. State, 303 Ark. 462, 798 S.W.2d 65 (1990); Coley v. State, 304 Ark. 304, 801 S.W.2d 647 (1991); Sanders v. State, 305 Ark. 112, 805 S.W.2d 953 (1991); Bishop v. State, 310 Ark. 479, 839 S.W.2d 6 (1992); Houston v. State, 319 Ark. 498, 892 S.W.2d 274 (1995); Baldwin v. State, 48 Ark. App. 181, 892 S.W.2d 534 (1995); Boyd v. State, 54 Ark. App. 17, 922 S.W.2d 357 (1996); Releford v. State, 59 Ark. App. 136, 954 S.W.2d 295 (1997); Moore v. State, 330 Ark. 514, 954 S.W.2d 932 (1997); Isom v. State, 356 Ark. 156, 148 S.W.3d 257 (2004); McElyea v. State, 87 Ark. App. 103, 189 S.W.3d 67 (2004); Whitt v. State, 365 Ark. 580, 232 S.W.3d 459 (2006); Boldin v. State, 373 Ark. 295, 283 S.W.3d 565 (2008); Lacy v. State, 2010 Ark. 388, 377 S.W.3d 227 (2010); Ramsey v. State, 2010 Ark. App. 836, 378 S.W.3d 797 (2010); Means v. State, 2015 Ark. App. 643, 476 S.W.3d 168 (2015).