Legal Opinion

People v. Anderson

California Supreme Court

Decided June 2, 2011No. S175351PublishedCited by 127 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

WERDEGAR, J.

We hold here that the intent element of robbery does not include an intent to apply force against the victim or to cause the victim to feel fear. It is robbery if the defendant committed a forcible act against the *992victim motivated by the intent to steal, even if the defendant did not also intend for the victim to experience force or fear. We also hold a trial court has no obligation to provide a sua sponte instruction on accident where, as here, the defendant’s theory of accident is an attempt to negate the intent element of the charged crime.

BACKGROUND

Defendant Paul D.…

2Cases cited24 opinions

  1. People v. GreenCalifornia Supreme Court · 1980
  2. People v. AlvarezCalifornia Supreme Court · 1996
  3. People v. SailleCalifornia Supreme Court · 1991
  4. People v. BoldenCalifornia Supreme Court · 2002
  5. People v. RoldanCalifornia Supreme Court · 2005

19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by127 opinions

  1. People v. CovarrubiasCalifornia Supreme Court · 2016
  2. United States v. Kareem DoctorCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 2016
  3. United States v. James DixonCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2015
  4. People v. LoperCalifornia Supreme Court · 2015
  5. Los Angeles County Department of Children & Family Services v. William C.California Supreme Court · 2012

122 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API