A person commits robbery when, in the course of committing a larceny, he uses or threatens the immediate use of physical force upon another person for the purpose of: (1) Preventing or overcoming resistance to the taking of the property or to the retention thereof immediately after the taking; or (2) compelling the owner of such property or another person to deliver up the property or to engage in other conduct which aids in the commission of the larceny.
(1969, P.A. 828, S. 135.)
See Sec. 53a-119 for definition of “larceny”.
Defendant's ability to carry out threat of immediate physical force is not essential element of robbery. 175 C. 569. Cited. 176 C. 239; 178 C. 689; 179 C. 576; 180 C. 599; 181 C. 388; 182 C. 430; Id., 449; 183 C. 299; 185 C. 402; 189 C. 114; 190 C. 822; 195 C. 567; 196 C. 122; Id., 395; 199 C. 207; 201 C. 289; Id., 489; 202 C. 349; 206 C. 621; Id., 657; 209 C. 564; 210 C. 652; 211 C. 398; 212 C. 31; 216 C. 367; 219 C. 489; 223 C. 243; Id., 595; 225 C. 270; Id., 347; 230 C. 183; 232 C. 455; 233 C. 44; 235 C. 748; 241 C. 322; 242 C. 523; Id., 666. Use of force considered to be in course of robbery or attempted robbery within meaning of statute if it occurs during continuous sequence of events surrounding the taking or attempted taking, even though some time immediately before or after. 248 C. 472. A larceny by false pretenses that precedes the use of force can satisfy the larceny element of robbery under section if the force is used in order to retain the property immediately after the taking. 340 C. 447.
Cited. 1 CA 642; 8 CA 545; Id., 620; 9 CA 373; 10 CA 330; Id., 474; 12 CA 163; 13 CA 420; 19 CA 111; judgment reversed, see 215 C. 538; Id., 423; Id., 554; Id., 695; 20 CA 27; Id., 513; 21 CA 299; 24 CA 27; judgment reversed, see 220 C. 652; 25 CA 104; Id., 646; 27 CA 601; 28 CA 161; Id., 612; Id., 721; 31 CA 47; 32 CA 193; 33 CA 184; judgment reversed, see 232 C. 707; Id., 311; 34 CA 223; 35 CA 699; Id., 839; 36 CA 401; 38 CA 531; Id., 581; 39 CA 63; Id., 478; Id., 579; Id., 617; 41 CA 147; Id., 255; Id., 584; 43 CA 801; 44 CA 307; 45 CA 6; 46 CA 616; Id., 691; Id., 778. Term “purpose” is synonymous with the terms “object” and “intent”; completion of crime not required for conviction under section. 51 CA 541. Knife with a 6-inch blade displayed by defendant during a robbery was capable of causing death or serious physical injury and constituted a “dangerous instrument” and defendant, by his actions, demands for the money and manner of carrying the knife, used or threatened to use it during the robbery. 82 CA 823. Words in common usage can satisfy requirement of threat if jury could reasonably have inferred those words to mean “threat”. 93 CA 257. Defendant's actions in keeping victim's ATM card and the money and ordering victim out of vehicle at gun point were sufficient to constitute the “deliver up” of property within meaning of Subdiv. (2). 102 CA 532.
Cited. 41 CS 525.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
351
cases (
12 in the last 5 years), 1978–2026 · leading case:
State v. Williams, 521 A.2d 150 (Conn. 1987).
State v. Williams, 521 A.2d 150 (Conn. 1987).
· cites it 17× “The focus of his insufficiency claim is based wholly upon the evidence related to proof of the essential element of robbery, that the actor must use or threaten “the immediate use of physical force upon another person for the purpose of: (1) preventing or overcoming resistance…”
State v. McColl, 813 A.2d 107 (Conn. App. Ct. 2003).
· cites it 12× “” Therefore it incorporates the disputed statutory provisions at issue, General Statutes § 53a-133 (1) and (2). General Statutes § 53a-92 (a) provides in relevant part: “A person is guilty of kidnapping in the first degree when he abducts another person and .”
State v. Brown, 11 A.3d 663 (Conn. 2011).
· cites it 10× “This court previously has concluded that § 53a-133, the operative statute in the present case, "clearly mandates punishment for each and every robbery of each and every person, irrespective of whether the robbery was spatially linked with another robbery.”
State v. Ghere, 513 A.2d 1226 (Conn. 1986).
· cites it 16× “3 He argues instead that there was insufficient proof: (1) of his intent to commit larceny in that the assailants’ actions constituted, at the most, “aggressive panhandling”; and (2) that he used or threatened to use force “in the course of” attempting a larceny as required…”
State v. Kurvin, 442 A.2d 1327 (Conn. 1982).
· cites it 8× “" [3] The majority's discussion of the court's use of the word "purpose" in the instructions on robbery as defined in General Statutes § 53a-133 is irrelevant to the claim of error regarding the sufficiency of the instructions on intent as an element of larceny, which is an…”
State v. Horne, 562 A.2d 43 (Conn. App. Ct. 1989).
· cites it 15× “With respect to the jeans shop case, the court included in its instructions on the definition of robbery the statutory alternative that the defendant, in committing a larceny, used force or its threat “for the purpose of .”
State v. Ingram, 687 A.2d 1279 (Conn. App. Ct. 1996).
· cites it 14× “See General Statutes § 53a-135. Applying the foregoing principles to the facts that the juiy reasonably could have found from the evidence, we are not persuaded by the defendant’s claim that the evidence was insufficient to support the jury’s verdict.”
State v. Tweedy, 594 A.2d 906 (Conn. 1991).
· cites it 8× “General Statutes § 53a-133, which defines robbery, provides that a defendant “commits robbery when, in the course of committing a larceny, he uses or threatens the immediate use of physical force upon another person for the purpose of: (1) Preventing or overcoming resistance to…”
State v. Coltherst, 820 A.2d 1024 (Conn. 2003).
· cites it 6× “The defendant, Jamaal Coltherst, appeals 1 from the judgment of conviction, rendered after a jury trial, of capital felony in violation of General Statutes §§ 53a-54b (5) 2 and 53a-8 (a), 3 murder in violation of General Statutes §§ 53a-54a (a) 4 and 53a-8 (a), felony murder in…”
State v. Torres, 847 A.2d 1022 (Conn. App. Ct. 2004).
· cites it 9× “General Statutes § 53a-133 provides that “[a] person commits robbery when, in the course of committing a larceny, he uses or threatens the immediate use of physical force upon another person for the purpose of: (1) Preventing or overcoming resistance to the taking of the…”
State v. Arroyo, 973 A.2d 1254 (Conn. 2009).
· cites it 5× “The Appellate Court rejected the defendant’s second claim because it concluded that, in order to convict the defendant of felony murder, the jury was required to find that the defendant or another participant had caused Caruso’s death in the course of a robbery in violation of…”
State v. Wright, 716 A.2d 870 (Conn. 1998).
· cites it 9× “) General Statutes § 53a-133. Thus, the distinguishing characteristic of larceny from the person is that the property is taken from the person of the victim; the distinguishing characteristic of simple robbery is that force or the threat of immediate force is used to facilitate…”
— Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53a-133(2) — 1 case
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.