(a) Every person who shall commit: (1) robbery by use of a dangerous weapon; (2) robbery
where a victim is injured; or (3) robbery where the victim is a person who is severely
impaired or an elderly person; shall be guilty of first degree robbery and shall be
imprisoned for not less than ten (10) years and may be imprisoned for life, or fined
not more than fifteen thousand dollars ($15,000), or both.
(b) Every person who shall commit robbery or other larceny from the person by force or
threat, where there is no weapon and no injury and the victim is neither a severely
impaired person or an elderly person, shall be guilty of second degree robbery and
shall be imprisoned for not less than five (5) years nor more than thirty (30) years,
or fined not more than ten thousand dollars ($10,000), or both.
(c) For the purposes of this section:
(1) “Person who is severely impaired” has the same definition as provided in § 11-5-11; and
(2) “Elderly person” means a person sixty (60) years of age or older.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
80
cases (
5 in the last 5 years), 1972–2024 · leading case:
State v. Bido, 941 A.2d 822 (R.I. 2008).
State v. Bido, 941 A.2d 822 (R.I. 2008).
· cites it 3× “1956 § 11-1-6 and G.L. 1956 § 11-39-1, as amended by P.L.1980, ch.”
State v. Day, 925 A.2d 962 (R.I. 2007).
· cites it 4× “It is only the fifth factor that weighs against a ruling that the conspiracies were, in fact, a single conspiracy, as defendant was charged under two separate underlying statutes — G.L.1956 § 11-39-1 and § ll-39-2(c). Nevertheless, after carefully considering the Booth factors…”
Stokeling v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 544 (2019).
“§§ 3701 (a)(1)(i)-(ii), (iv) (2015); R.I. Gen. Laws § 11-39-1(a) (2002) ; S.D.”
State v. Grant, 840 A.2d 541 (R.I. 2004).
· cites it 3× “Because the statute establishing the penalties for robbery does not define the elements of the crime, G.L.1956 § 11-39-1, the common law definition remains applicable.”
McKinney v. State, 843 A.2d 463 (R.I. 2004).
· cites it 4× “In 1994 McKinney pled nolo contendere to six counts relating to his crime: one count of first-degree robbery in violation of G.L.1956 § 11-39-1; one count of assault with intent to commit robbery in violation of G.”
State v. Stone, 924 A.2d 773 (R.I. 2007).
· cites it 4× “Section 11-39-1, which establishes the penalties for robbery, fails to set forth the elements of that crime; this Court has held that, for this reason, “the common law definition is applicable.”
State v. Robertson, 740 A.2d 330 (R.I. 1999).
· cites it 5× “1956 § 11-5-1, and one count of robbery in the second degree, pursuant to G.L.1956 § 11-39-1, as amended by P.L.1991, ch.”
United States v. Sabetta, 221 F. Supp. 3d 210 (D.R.I. 2016).
· cites it 2× “The Defendants Paige and Young also argue that their convictions for second-degree robbery in violation of R.I. Gen. Laws § 11-39-1 do not qualify as violent felonies.”
State v. Marsich, 10 A.3d 435 (R.I. 2010).
· cites it 3× “4 The motion was denied and defendant assigns error to this ruling, arguing that his convictions of first-degree robbery (G.L.1956 § 11-39-1) and committing a crime of violence with a firearm violate the United States and Rhode Island Constitutions.”
State v. Ouimette, 479 A.2d 702 (R.I. 1984).
· cites it 4× “Section 11-39-1. It is within this range of penalties that the trial court must sentence defendant, who was convicted of aiding and abetting in the crime of robbery.”
State v. Anthony, 422 A.2d 921 (R.I. 1980).
· cites it 2× “…of G.L. 1956 (1969 Reenactment) § 11-23-1; (2) conspiring to rob Scott Prescott in violation of § 11-1-1 and § 11-39-1; (3) the robbery of Scott Prescott in violation of § 11-39-1; (4) the possession of a firearm during the commission of a crime of violence in…”
— R.I. Gen. Laws § 11-39-1(a) — 9 cases
Stokeling v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 544 (2019).
“§§ 3701 (a)(1)(i)-(ii), (iv) (2015); R.I. Gen. Laws § 11-39-1(a) (2002) ; S.D.”
State v. Stone, 924 A.2d 773 (R.I. 2007).
“Section 11-39-1, which establishes the penalties for robbery, fails to set forth the elements of that crime; this Court has held that, for this reason, “the common law definition is applicable.”
— R.I. Gen. Laws § 11-39-1(b) — 2 cases
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.