In re B.B. CA5

DISCUSSION

Minor contends that the evidence presented by the prosecution established neither the “force” nor “fear” element of robbery. The People agree, as do we. A. Background During minor’s contested jurisdictional hearing, the prosecutor argued that the “force” or “fear” element of robbery was proven by minor’s conduct, stating,

“[Minor] approached a child who was obviously less than half his size and grabbed his necklace and ran away with it. I believe that is sufficient for the 487(c), the grand theft from a person, as well as the fact that he—although the minor describes that it was a clasp. The size difference, and the fact that he had apparently taken the necklace from [J.M.] before clearly indicates that there was fear or force involved, and therefore we would and that the Court find Count 1 and 2 to be true.” Defense counsel then argued,

“As far as the robbery charge, I do not believe that Petitioner has shown that there was force or fear used, even if the court was to find that [minor] was the one that took the necklace. There are quite a few cases regarding force or fear. One, [People v. Morales (1975) 49 Cal.App.3d 134, 139], which states that something more…