Dickson v. United States, 274 A.3d 366

The U.S. Fourth Circuit certified to the Maryland Court of Appeals whether Maryland robbery can be committed by (1) threatening force against a victim’s property, or (2) threatening to accuse the victim of sodomy.
Joel Adam Dickson’s 2007 Maryland robbery conviction was used in a federal presentence report to classify a later § 922(g) offense as committed after a "crime of violence," increasing his Sentencing Guidelines range; Dickson objected.
Dickson argued those two non‑violent modalities were part of English common law as of July 4, 1776 and therefore part of Maryland common law; he relied partly on dicta in Giles and some English Old Bailey/Twelve Judges reports.
The Government urged there was no settled pre‑1776 English rule supporting those modalities and that Maryland appellate decisions uniformly defined robbery as a taking from the person or in the person’s presence by violence or by putting the person in fear (i.e., threat of bodily harm); the General Assembly codified the judicially determined meaning in 2000.
The Court reviewed historical English cases and treatises, Maryland precedents, and the 2000 codification and held that Maryland robbery does not include threats to property or threats to accuse of sodomy.

Issue	Dickson's Argument	Government's Argument	Held
Whether robbery may be committed by threatening force against property	Maryland incorporated English common law (pre‑1776) that allowed threats to property to constitute "putting in fear" for robbery	No settled pre‑1776 English rule; Maryland cases define robbery as taking from the person by violence or threat to the person	No — threats to property alone do not support Maryland robbery
Whether robbery may be committed by threatening to accuse the victim of sodomy	Pre‑1776 English authority (e.g., Jones/Brown as read by Dickson and Giles dicta) supports a "sodomy exception"	Those English cases do not establish a settled pre‑1776 rule; Maryland treatises and cases treat robbery as involving violence or fear of bodily harm	No — threats to accuse of sodomy alone do not support Maryland robbery

West v. State, 312 Md. 197 (Md. 1988) (defines robbery as larceny from the person by violence or by putting in fear)
Coles v. State, 374 Md. 114 (Md. 2003) (robbery’s hallmark is presence of force or threat of force)
Giles v. State, 8 Md. App. 721 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 1970) (dicta suggesting fear of injury to property or certain reputation threats may suffice)
Douglas v. State, 9 Md. App. 647 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 1970) (cites Giles dicta on scope of "putting in fear")
Foster v. State, 297 Md. 191 (Md. 1983) (robbery is taking from the person or in his presence by violence or by putting in fear)
Williams v. State, 302 Md. 787 (Md. 1985) (similar definition of robbery as forcible taking from the person)
Spencer v. State, 422 Md. 422 (Md. 2011) (construing "putting in fear" as referring to threat of physical violence)