Robbery Cases in Bucks County
Robbery in Pennsylvania is covered under 18 Pa.C.S. § 3701. The statute states,
§ 3701. Robbery.
(a) Offense defined.
(1) A person is guilty of robbery if, in the course of committing a theft, he:
(i) inflicts serious bodily injury upon another;
(ii) threatens another with or intentionally puts him in fear of immediate serious bodily injury;
(iii) commits or threatens immediately to commit any felony of the first or second degree;
(iv) inflicts bodily injury upon another or threatens another with or intentionally puts him in fear of immediate bodily injury;
(v) physically takes or removes property from the person of another by force however slight; or
(vi) takes or removes the money of a financial institution without the permission of the financial institution by making a demand of an employee of the financial institution orally or in writing with the intent to deprive the financial institution thereof.
(2) An act shall be deemed "in the course of committing a theft" if it occurs in an attempt to commit theft or in flight after the attempt or commission.
(3) For purposes of this subsection, a "financial institution" means a bank, trust company, savings trust, credit union or similar institution.
(b) Grading. --Robbery under subsection (a)(1)(iv) and (vi) is a felony of the second degree; robbery under subsection (a)(1)(v) is a felony of the third degree; otherwise, it is a felony of the first degree.
Possible Defense is Retail Theft
As you can see, there are various "types" of robbery. Sometimes, however, prosecutors in Bucks County will try and make a retail theft into a robbery in order to seek a felony. They normally do this by charging 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 3701(a)(1)(v) if that facts involve someone committing a retail theft in a store and that person running away and potentially assaulting a security guard/loss prevention specialist. Getting a felony in this type of scenario is however, a big stretch. Bucks County criminal defense lawyers should be familiar with the case of Commonwealth v. Allen Moore of 1985. This case has received very favorable treatment in the years it was published.
In the Moore case, the defendant try to exit a supermarket with a concealed steak. They were approached by a security guard and then attempted to flee. In the chase, the defendant was restrained and struggled with the security guard who was injured in the scuffle. The person was charged with "physically takes or removes property from the person of another by force however slight" under (a)(1)(v).
The court in Moore refused to agree with the Commonwealth's position that the "taking from a person" could be applied to a situation when a person is in charge of an area (i.e. security guard) and they observe a retail theft.
The court remarked [emphasis added],
As you can see, the prosecutor "overcharged". Make sure this doesn't happen to you.It is readily apparent that the most common crime intended to fall under section 3701(a)(1)(v) is purse snatching, while it certainly is not the only scenario which could come under that statute. In the instant case, there was no purse snatching nor any type of similar situation, but simply a theft in a retail store observed by a store security guard. Were we to adopt the Commonwealth's proposed interpretation of the phrase "taking from the person of another" as it applies to the fact in the instant case, it would lead to the absurd result that a robbery would result every time a retail theft is observed by a store security guard or employee. Such an occurrence is simply not a robbery as contemplated under section 3701(a)(1)(v). Retail theft cannot become robbery merely because someone to whom property is entrusted observes a theft of that property. This is not to say that there can never be a robbery under section 3701(a)(1)(v) arising out of a retail theft. We hold only that there was no robbery under the facts as presented to this Court.