Lead Opinion
Gаry Coleman appeals from his conviction of one count of second-degree robbery, section 569.030,
Facts
In October 2012, Mr. Coleman walked into a bank, rested his forearm on the counter, handed the bank teller a plastic grocery saсk, and said, “I need you to do me a favor. Put the money in this bag.” The teller placed $1,472 in the bag. An assistant manager approached Mr. Coleman. Mr. Coleman told her, “Ma’am, stop where you are and don’t move any farther.” The assistant managеr complied. Mr. Coleman took the bag of money and ran out of the bank. The entire encounter lasted approximately 45 seconds. Mr. Coleman was arrested in Texas and extradited to Missouri. Mr. Coleman admitted to police that he was the man in the bank surveillance photographs and that he had taken the money from the bank.
Mr. Coleman was charged as a persistent offender with one count of second-degree robbery pursuant to section 569.030.1. Mr. Coleman waived his, right to а jury trial. He was tried by the court and found guilty as charged. The court sentenced Mr. Coleman as a persistent offender to a term of ten years imprisonment.
Mr. Coleman appeals. In his only point on appeal, Mr. Coleman argues that therе was insufficient evidence to support his conviction for second-degree robbery because he did not forcibly steal the money through the use or threatened use of force.
Standard of Review
Appellate review of a claim that there is insufficiеnt evidence to support a conviction “is limited to a determination of whether there is sufficient evidence from which a reasonable juror might have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.” State v. Stover,
Analysis
Section 569.030 provides in pertinеnt part: “A person commits the crime of robbery in the second degree when he forcibly steals property.” A person “forcibly steals” if “in the course of stealing ... he uses or threatens the immediate use of physical force upon anоther person for the purpose of’ either defeating resistance to the theft or compelling the surrender of the property. Section 569.010(1). Therefore, to support a second-degree robbery conviction, there must be evidence establishing beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant used physical force or threatened someone with the immediate use of physical force to accomplish the theft.
Mr. Coleman argues that there is insufficient evidеnce that he forcibly stole the money because he neither threatened nor attempted to threaten the bank teller or the assistant manager. Mr. Coleman asserts that he simply walked into the bank, asked for money and then left the bank once the teller gave him the bag of money.
In State v. Brooks,
First, as this Court recognized in Brooks, determining the existence of a threat is an objective test that depends on whether a reasonable person would believe thе defendant’s conduct was a threat of the immediate use of physical force. Id. at 676. Banks are regular targets of robberies, and bank employees have a heightened awareness of security threats. Id. A demand for money in that context is an implicit threat of the use of force in and of itself. Id. citing United States v. Gilmore,
Second, whether suсh an implicit threat would itself be sufficient depends on the facts of the case. Here, when viewed in context, they provide further evidence that Mr. Coleman forcibly stole the money by means of an actual or attempted threat. Mr. Colеman approached the bank teller, kept one hand concealed, demanded money to which he had no lawful right, and directed the branch manager not to move any farther when she approached to investigate the situation. These facts and the inferences from those facts support the conclusion that a reasonable person would perceive Mr. Coleman’s actions as threatening and, as a result, would comply with his directive to place the money in the bag. To hold otherwise, this Court would have to hold that the only reasonable inference that could be drawn was that Mr. Coleman’s actions were nothing more than a mere request for some of the bank’s money. There was sufficient evidence to support the conviction.
Mr. Coleman also argues that Brooks should be overruled because the case stands for the proposition the every theft of money from a bank constitutes second-degree robbery. Neither Brooks nor this case holds that all thefts of money from a bank necessarily involve forcible stealing and, therefore, constitute robbery. Instead, these cases recognize that context matters. The objective circumstances attending the unlawful demand of money from a bank are often such that there is a strong implication of a threat. As in Brooks, the fundamental problem with Mr. Coleman’s version of events is that it contradicts the facts and inferences from those facts that were found by the trial court acting in its capacity as the finder of fact. To adopt Mr. Coleman’s version of events, this Court would have to hold that the trial court’s finding that Mr. Coleman forcibly stole the money by means of an actual or attempted threat is unsupported by the record and rests on forced or speculative inferences. This Court declines to do so.
Conclusion
There was sufficient evidence supporting the trial court’s finding that Mr. Coleman committed the crime of robbery in the second-degree because he forcibly stole the money by thrеatening the immediate use of physical force for the purpose of both defeating resistance to the theft of the money and compelling its surrender.
The judgment is affirmed.
Notes
. All statutory citations are to RSMo 2000.
Dissenting Opinion
DISSENTING
I respectfully dissent from the holding of the majority opinion that there is sufficient evidence to prove that Gary Coleman forcibly stole money from a bank. He is charged with committing the class B felоny of robbery in the second degree in violation of section 569.030,
[A] person “forcibly steals”, and thereby' commits robbery, when, in the course of stealing, ... he uses or threatens the immediate use of physical force upon another person for thе purpose of:
(a) Preventing or overcoming resistance to the taking of the property or to the retention therefore immediately after the taking; or
(b) Compelling the owner of such property or another person to delivеr up the property or to engage in other conduct which aids in the commission of the theft[.]
There is no claim that Mr. Coleman actually used physical force on another person to effectuate the stealing of money from the bank. Rather, the majority opinion finds that Mr. Coleman’s conduct of keeping one hand concealed,
I agree that any victim of a bank robbery would reasonably be in fear that the victim is in danger and, while the bank robbery is in progress, there was an ongoing, inherent threat that Mr. Coleman would decide to use force. That reasonable perception is supported by reports of countless crimes in which the perpetrators needlessly decide to injure or kill victims and bystanders during the commission of robberies. The reasonable perception that a victim is in danger of the use of fоrce during a robbery is not sufficient, however, to meet the requirement of section 569.010(1) that the defendant “uses or threatens the immediate use of physical force upon another person.” (Emphasis added).
The dictionary defines “physical” as “of or relating to the body,” Webster’s Third New International Dictionary 1706 (1993), and “force” as “power, violence, compulsion, or constraint exerted upon or against a person or thing,” id. at 887. The dictionary definition of “immediate” is “occurring, acting, or accomplished without loss of time: made or done at once: INSTANT.” Id. at 1129. Mr. Coleman’s conduct of having his hand below the counter, demanding money to which he has no lawful right, and directing the branch manager not to move any farther is insufficient to prove that he threatened immediate use of power, violence, comрulsion or constraint [against the bank teller or branch manager]. Therefore, there was insufficient evidence that he threatened the “im
The effect of finding that there is insufficient evidence that Mr. Coleman forcibly stole the money from the bank is that he would be guilty of only the lesser-included crime of stealing. See section 570.030, RSMo Supp.2012. While it seems unlikely that the legislature would intend that a bank robber be guilty only of'stealing, this Court must determine thе intent of the-legislature from the plain and ordinary meaning of the words the legislature used in the statute. State v. Moore,
. Unless otherwise indicated, all statutory references are to RSMo 2000.
. When asked at trial where Mr. Coleman’s hands were, thе bank teller stated, "The one was above the counter and the other was below.” The majority opinion characterizes this evidence as Mr. Coleman keeping his hand "concealed.”
. In State v. Brooks, this Court found sufficient evidence to support a conviction of robbery in the second degree when the defendant walked into a bank wearing a disguise, handed the teller a note that read "50 & 100’s, No Bait Bills, Bottom Drawer,” and slammed his hand down on the bank counter while telling the teller to "get back here.”