128 So. 3d 935
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2013Background
- Appellant Darryl Ridgeway was convicted of one count of robbery with a deadly weapon arising from a gas-station robbery early in the morning.
- Ridgeway demanded money after jumping over the counter; clerks alleged to have brandished a knife in self-defense.
- The knife pierced Ridgeway’s back during the incident as he jumped back over the counter and exited with the knife.
- The State relied on surveillance video and clerk testimony to prove taking the knife, use of force, intent to deprive, and carrying a deadly weapon during the robbery.
- Ridgeway challenged the denial of his motion for judgment of acquittal, arguing insufficiency on taking the knife and on the requisite intent.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence suffices to prove robbery with a deadly weapon | Ridgeway argues the State failed to prove taking, intent, and weapon involvement. | Ridgeway contends there was no taking of the knife or required intent. | Evidence supports all elements; judgment of acquittal affirmed for the State. |
| Whether there was a taking of the knife from the clerk | State argues taking occurred when Ridgeway pulled the knife from his back and advanced toward the clerk. | Ridgeway contends no taking occurred because he did not obtain possession by voluntary action; the knife was given to him by force. | There was a taking; the knife was taken from the clerk’s control in the context of the robbery. |
| Whether the taking and use of force occurred in the course of the robbery | State presented ongoing acts linking taking with fear and force in a continuous sequence. | Ridgeway argues the force/brandishing occurred after or independent of the taking, undermining the robbery element. | The acts constituted a continuous sequence in the course of the robbery; elements satisfied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Pagan v. State, 830 So.2d 792 (Fla. 2002) (de novo review for judgment of acquittal standard; sufficient evidence required)
- Jones v. State, 790 So.2d 1194 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001) (test for legally adequate evidence on review)
- Lynch v. State, 293 So.2d 44 (Fla.1974) (jury may rely on favorable view of the evidence)
- Perry v. State, 801 So.2d 78 (Fla. 2001) (taking may occur even if property not in victim’s immediate possession)
- Bailey v. State, 199 So.2d 726 (Fla.1st DCA 1967) (intent to deprive may be shown by surrounding circumstances)
- Sims v. State, 681 So.2d 1112 (Fla.1996) (robbery intent can be inferred from actions taken to obtain property)
- Jackson v. State, 662 So.2d 1369 (Fla.1st DCA 1995) (robbery with a deadly weapon can occur when the weapon is carried during the robbery)
- Rockmore v. State, 114 So.3d 958 (Fla.5th DCA 2012) (abandonment concept discussed in taking of property)
- Pen-y v. State, 801 So.2d 87 (Fla.1st DCA 2001) (definition of taking and property control in robbery context)
- Allen v. State, 876 So.2d 737 (Fla.1st DCA 2004) (fundamental error where essential elements are absent)