Robbery in the first degree
Source:
Section 164.415 — Robbery in the first degree, https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills_laws/ors/ors164.html.
Notes of Decisions
If evidence of other crimes tended to prove the commission of the crime charged in the indictment, the general rule of exclusion had no application. State v. Fuston, 7 Or App 436, 490 P2d 1024 (1971), Sup Ct review denied
“Theft by receiving” is lesser included offense to crime of first degree robbery. State v. Boucher, 13 Or App 339, 509 P2d 1228 (1973)
A person convicted of first degree robbery is not subject to the possibility of an enhanced sentence under [former] ORS 166.230. State v. Howe, 26 Or App 743, 554 P2d 605 (1976), Sup Ct review denied
Sentencing order, which clearly indicated that defendant was sentenced on first degree robbery charge and that first degree burglary charge was merged with robbery charge for purpose of sentencing, was proper. State v. Bruce, 31 Or App 1189, 572 P2d 351 (1977), Sup Ct review denied
Where state relied on precisely same act to establish “use-physical-force” element of robbery and “cause-physical-injury” element of assault, defendant’s assault conviction merged into robbery conviction. State v. Steele, 33 Or App 491, 577 P2d 524 (1978), Sup Ct review denied
Defendant’s convictions for first and second degree robbery were merged where charges involved same victim and conduct at same time and place. State v. Fickes, 36 Or App 361, 584 P2d 770 (1978)
Where same violent act, striking victim with 2x4 board, was basis for both first degree robbery and first degree burglary convictions, they were merged to extent that same violent act was element in each, and burglary conviction was reduced to second degree. State v. Kline, 37 Or App 899, 588 P2d 675 (1978)
When defendant was charged under this section it was error to convict under second degree assault (ORS 163.175) because every element of second degree assault was not included in first degree robbery under the statutory scheme or the indictment. State v. Cartwright, 40 Or App 593, 595 P2d 1289 (1979)
Legislature, in adopting this section and ORS 164.405, intended to continue to permit juries to infer from fact that gun used in robbery was pointed at victim within firing range that it was loaded gun, and such inference does not shift burden of proof to defendant or violate his privilege against self-incrimination. State v. Vance, 285 Or 383, 591 P2d 355 (1979)
Evidence was sufficient for jury on issue of whether defendant threw “molotov cocktail,” whether it was dangerous weapon, and whether it was intended to prevent resistance to theft. State v. Clark, 47 Or App 557, 615 P2d 1044 (1980)
Evidence that robber pointed shotgun at victim for brief time and shotgun shells were found with gun, was sufficient to support inference that gun was loaded and therefore a “deadly weapon.” State v. Armstrong, 52 Or App 161, 618 P2d 1206 (1981), Sup Ct review denied
Evidence showing that, inter alia: two men walked into store with handkerchiefs over their faces and declared, “this is a robbery, move”; each kept his right hand in his jacket pocket pointing outward, conveying the impression of holding a gun; the victim and another witness identified defendant as one of the robbers; and two guns were found in car defendant was driving; was sufficient for rational jury to have concluded defendant was armed with deadly weapon during robbery. State v. Campbell, 56 Or App 527, 642 P2d 346 (1982)
Acts of petitioner in robbing store clerk and then robbing customer were separate and reflected choice to carry out two separate criminal objectives and merging the two robberies for purposes of conviction and sentencing was improper. Rolin v. Cupp, 57 Or App 64, 643 P2d 1310 (1982), Sup Ct review denied
Assault in second degree is not lesser included offense of robbery in first or second degree. State v. Taylor, 97 Or App 261, 774 P2d 1121 (1989)
Where there is single victim, robbery by use or attempt to use dangerous weapon and robbery by causing or attempting serious physical injury define separate crimes that do not merge. State v. Nevarez, 168 Or App 325, 5 P3d 1200 (2000)
Elements of second degree robbery are not necessarily included in elements of first degree robbery. State v. Zimmerman, 170 Or App 329, 12 P3d 996 (2000)
Where there is single victim, robbery by use or attempt to use deadly weapon and robbery by use or attempt to use dangerous weapon define separate crimes that do not merge. State v. Johnson, 174 Or App 27, 25 P3d 353 (2001), Sup Ct review denied
Menacing is not lesser included offense of first degree robbery. State v. Lee, 174 Or App 119, 23 P3d 999 (2001), Sup Ct review denied
Where joint owner of property aided and abetted third party in forcibly taking property from other owner, joint owner committed robbery of other owner. State v. Zweigart, 344 Or 619, 188 P3d 242 (2008)
To be victim of crime of robbery, person does not need to own property that is taken. State v. Hamilton, 348 Or 371, 233 P3d 432 (2010)
Use of or attempt to use dangerous weapon includes use of dangerous weapon to threaten victim. State v. Osborne, 242 Or App 85, 255 P3d 513 (2011)
Second degree robbery is not lesser included offense of first degree robbery. State v. Colmenares-Chavez, 244 Or App 339, 260 P3d 667 (2011), Sup Ct review denied
First degree armed robbery in violation of this section is not categorically “violent” felony under Armed Career Criminal Act, because mere possession of concealed weapon, not its use, can establish being “armed” under this section. U.S. v. Shelby, 939 F3d 975 (9th Cir. 2019)
Up to date