Dreas

*627 Opinion

The principal issue presented on this appeal is whether the administering of drugs to overcome the victim’s resistance can constitute the element of force within the meaning of Penal Code section 211.

Saban Dreas appeals from a judgment of conviction, following a jury trial, of three counts of robbery, three counts of administering drugs with intent to commit a felony (§ 222), three counts of burglary and two counts of auto theft.

The facts in each of the three instances are basically the same. Appellant would patronize a bar, strike up a conversation with the victim, a patron, and suggest that they go and have coffee. They would go to the victim’s home, where appellant would surreptitiously insert lorazepam, a hypnotic sedative and tranquilizer, into the victim’s coffee. After the victim was rendered unconscious, appellant would take money, valuable items of personal property (in two incidents in excess of $25,000) and in two incidents the victim’s automobile.

I.

The “Force” Element of the Robbery

As stated above, appellant was found guilty of three counts of robbery. These convictions were predicated on evidence showing that in each instance appellant used…

I respectfully dissent.

This is not a situation where the suspect invoked his right to counsel. Instead, it is an absolutely straightforward invocation of his right to remain silent.

The uncontradicted testimony on the question of whether defendant invoked the right to remain silent is contained in the tape recording of the confession; Officer: “Mr. Dreas, again. I want to advise you of your rights. You have a right to remain silent, a right to an attorney. That anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. If you can’t afford an attorney, one will be provided before any questions are asked. You understand that? [1] A. Yes sir. [f] Q. Okay. Having your rights in mind, do you want to speak to me? [f] A. Well, only, you know, like sir, you know, if I could just call those guys, [f] Q. Yes, friends of yours, [f] A. Yes. [1] Q. Yeah, I told you you could call those. I want to get this interview on.”

That there is no doubt about what the officer meant is nailed down by the officer’s testimony: “Q. So you did not allow him to make any phone calls until the interview was completed; is that right? [f] A. That is correct.”

The United States Supreme Court in…

The principal issue presented on this appeal is whether the administering of drugs to overcome the victim's resistance can constitute the element of force within the meaning of Penal Code section 211. [1]

Saban Dreas appeals from a judgment of conviction, following a jury trial, of three counts of robbery, three counts of administering drugs with intent to commit a felony (§ 222), three counts of burglary and two counts of auto theft.

The facts in each of the three instances are basically the same. Appellant would patronize a bar, strike up a conversation with the victim, a patron, and suggest that they go and have coffee. They would go to the victim's home, where appellant would surreptitiously insert lorazepam, a hypnotic sedative and tranquilizer, into the victim's coffee. After the victim was rendered unconscious, appellant would take money, valuable items of personal property (in two incidents in excess of $25,000) and in two incidents the victim's automobile.

As stated above, appellant was found guilty of three counts of robbery. These convictions were predicated on evidence showing that in each instance appellant used lorazepam, a tranquilizer,…