Spencer V. State, 422 Md 422 (2011).
Robbery – Sufficiency of the Evidence
The issue before the COA in this case is whether there was sufficient evidence to convict Petitioner of robbery. Petitioner was charged and convicted of robbery, theft over $500, and second degree assault. Petitioner was sentenced to imprisonment for robbery, and, for purposes of sentencing the other two convictions merged. Petitioner challenged the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain his robbery conviction. The COA addresses the following question: Did the Court of Special Appeals incorrectly interpret and apply this Court's decision in Coles v. State, 374 Md. 114, 821 A.2d 389 (2003) and effectively eliminate the distinction between theft and robbery, when it held that the mere utterance, ‘don't say nothing,’ could satisfy the constructive force element of robbery where there was testimonial evidence from the alleged victim confirming the lack of any actual or implied threat of bodily harm; there was no brandishing of a weapon; and there existed no circumstances under which it could be inferred that Petitioner was carrying a weapon?”
The COA held, that the State failed to prove an essential element of the crime of robbery. There was no evidence that Petitioner conducted himself in a manner that could cause apprehension in a reasonable person that the petitioner was about to apply force. The COA critiqued the CSA decision by stating that although the CSA correctly stated the principle that the constructive force element of robbery may be satisfied without a showing of actual fear, that court failed to acknowledge that a review of the evidence in this case makes it clear that the Statefailed to produce any evidence showing that the petitioner conducted himself in a way that a reasonable person would construe as creating the apprehension that force was threatened. Without evidence to this effect, the State did not prove all elements of the robbery charge.
In Coles v. State, 374 Md. 114 (2003), the COA stated the following:
The issue before the COA in this case is whether there was sufficient evidence to convict Petitioner of robbery. Petitioner was charged and convicted of robbery, theft over $500, and second degree assault. Petitioner was sentenced to imprisonment for robbery, and, for purposes of sentencing the other two convictions merged. Petitioner challenged the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain his robbery conviction. The COA addresses the following question: Did the Court of Special Appeals incorrectly interpret and apply this Court's decision in Coles v. State, 374 Md. 114, 821 A.2d 389 (2003) and effectively eliminate the distinction between theft and robbery, when it held that the mere utterance, ‘don't say nothing,’ could satisfy the constructive force element of robbery where there was testimonial evidence from the alleged victim confirming the lack of any actual or implied threat of bodily harm; there was no brandishing of a weapon; and there existed no circumstances under which it could be inferred that Petitioner was carrying a weapon?”
The COA held, that the State failed to prove an essential element of the crime of robbery. There was no evidence that Petitioner conducted himself in a manner that could cause apprehension in a reasonable person that the petitioner was about to apply force. The COA critiqued the CSA decision by stating that although the CSA correctly stated the principle that the constructive force element of robbery may be satisfied without a showing of actual fear, that court failed to acknowledge that a review of the evidence in this case makes it clear that the Statefailed to produce any evidence showing that the petitioner conducted himself in a way that a reasonable person would construe as creating the apprehension that force was threatened. Without evidence to this effect, the State did not prove all elements of the robbery charge.
In Coles v. State, 374 Md. 114 (2003), the COA stated the following: