Gеrzon Ferrales (the “Victim”) was unloading luggage after arriving from Tampa with his wife, his mother, and his mother’s husband when he was approached by the defendant, Gregory Thomаs (“Thomas”). Thomas approached the Victim and his family under the pretext of selling them a CD player. When they declined to purchase, Thomas snatched а purse from the shoulder of the Victim’s mother. In addition to personal items belonging to the Victim’s mother, the purse also contained $460 that the Victim had given to his mother. Thomas attempted to flee the scene in a getaway car driven by another individual. The Victim attempted to prevent the taking by grabbing on to the passеnger side door of the vehicle as it took off.
As the vehicle sped away, Thomas forcibly attempted to knock the Victim from the side of the car. At one point, the driver stopped and apparently exited the car, but he quickly re-entered and resumed driving after he noticed approaching witnesses. Throughout these events, the Victim continued to resist the taking by holding on to the car door. After several minutes, the car arrived at a padlocked gate at the Opa-locka airport. The car slowed down, then sped through the gate and at least one more fence at the airport. The force of thеse impacts peeled the Victim off the car door. The Victim suffered several broken bones, lacerations, and bruises and died later at the hospital as a result of blunt force trauma to the head and neck. The car was found abandoned not far from the airport, along with the purse.
*855 Thomas was tried on сharges of first degree felony murder, robbery by sudden snatching, and grand theft auto. 1 At trial, Thomas moved for a judgment of acquittal on the count of first degree felony murder after the State rested. Thomas argued that there was insufficient evidence to establish the predicate felony of robbery. The motion was denied, and the jury ultimаtely found Thomas guilty of first degree felony murder, robbery by snatching, and grand theft auto. Thomas appeals the denial of his motion for acquittal.
We review the deniаl of the motion for judgment of acquittal de novo.
Troy v. State,
The elements of the crimе of robbery are set forth in section 812.13, Florida Statutes. Prior to 1987, Florida law “interpreted section 812.13 as being consistent with the common law ... [and required that] ‘[t]he violеnce or intimidation [associated with robbery] must precede or be contemporaneous with the taking of the property.’ ”
Royal v. State,
(1) “Robbery” means the taking of money or other property which may be the subject of larceny from the person or custody of another by force, violence, assault, or putting in fear.
Effective October 1, 1987, however, the robbery statute was amended by the inclusion of the phrase “when in the course of the taking” in subsection 812.13(1) and the addition of section 812.13(3)(b). See Ch. 87-315, ■§ 1, Laws of Fla.; §§ 812.13(1), (3)(b), Florida Statutes (1987). 2
The version of the statute applicablе to this case, inclusive of the 1987 amendment, reads as follows:
(1) “Robbery” means the taking of money or other property which may be the subject of larceny frоm the person or custody of another, with intent to either permanently or temporarily deprive the person or the owner of the money or other рroperty, when in the course of the taking there is the use of force, violence, assault, or putting in fear.
[[Image here]]
(3)(a) An act shall be deemed “in the course of committing the robbery” if it occurs in an attempt to commit robbery or in flight after the attempt or commission.
(b) An act shall be deemed “in the course of the taking” if it occurs either prior to, contemporaneous with, or subsequent to the taking of the property and if it and the act of taking constitute a continuous series оf acts or events.
§ 812.13, Fla. Stat. (2004) (emphasis added). By amending the statute, the legislature essentially expanded the definition of
*856
robbery to include acts occurring after the taking, provided that such acts and the taking are part of a “continuous series of acts or events.” Following the 1987 amendment, the “force, violenсe, assault, or putting in fear” no longer has to be exerted against the person from whom the property was taken, so long as it was exerted in the coursе of the taking.
See Santilli v. State,
In order to provе robbery in the case before us, the State was required to demonstrate that there was a “taking of money or other property ... from the person or custody of another” and that “in the course of the taking, there [was] the use of force, violence, assault, or putting in fear.” See § 812.13, Fla. Stat. (2004). These statutory requirements were satisfied because 1) there was a taking of money from the person of the Victim’s mother; 2) there was a use of force, violence, assault, or putting in fear by both Thomas and the driver against the Victim; 3) the exertion of such use of force was subsequent to the taking, while the victim was attempting to retrieve the stоlen money;
3
and 4) the taking and the use of force while fleeing the crime scene comprised a continuous series of acts, rendering the use of forcе “in the course of the taking.”
See id.; Santilli,
Thomas’ reliance upon
Gaiter v. State,
Based upon the foregoing, there is substantial competent evidence to support the conviction of felony murder and the finding of thе elements of the predicate felony of robbery by the jury. Accordingly, we affirm.
Affirmed.
Notes
. During his interview after he was taken into custody, Thomas admitted that he had stolen the getaway car a short time before the incident involving the Victim, but he also stated that the car was later stolen from him by someone else. Thomas maintained thаt he was not involved in the incident that caused the Victim’s death.
. Section 812.13 was again later amended in 1992. However, the 1992 amendment is not pertinent to our analysis.
. Witness testimony demonstrates that Thomas forcibly attempted to remove the Victim from the car door as the car sped away.