Howard v. State
2011 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 329
| Tex. Crim. App. | 2011Background
- Howard entered a Longview convenience store late at night armed with a rifle, concealing his face, and targeted a lone on-duty cashier.
- Patolia, the part-owner and cashier, observed the suspect on camera and through a one-way window, then locked the office door and called 911.
- The appellant could not open the cash register but took Patolia's wallet and some money before fleeing; he was arrested days later.
- A jury convicted Howard of aggravated robbery and the Sixth Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction.
- The sole issue on appeal was whether aggravated robbery requires interaction between the accused and the purported victim; there was no such proof of interaction.
- The Texas robbery statute makes robbery occur when, in the course of theft, the actor threatens or places another in fear of imminent bodily injury or death; the court interpreted this to include implicit as well as explicit threats and noted the mental-state requirement of knowingly placing someone in fear.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does aggravated robbery require victim-interaction? | Howard argues lack of interaction bars robbery conviction. | State contends fear may be placed in by conduct without interaction. | No interaction required; evidence supports knowing placement of victim in fear. |
Key Cases Cited
- Rayford v. State, 423 S.W.2d 300 (Tex.Cr.App.1968) (robbery can occur without physical interaction; fear can arise from indirect conduct)
- Cranford v. State, 377 S.W.2d 957 (Tex.Cr.App.1964) (fear must arise from the accused's conduct; knowledge of actual fear not required)
- Devine v. State, 786 S.W.2d 268 (Tex.Cr.App.1989) (cites breadth of 'fear' concept in robbery statute)
- Green v. State, 567 S.W.2d 211 (Tex.Cr.App.1978) (context for fear as element of robbery)
- Olivas v. State, 203 S.W.3d 341 (Tex.Cr.App.2006) (interpretation of 'threaten' within robbery statute)