State v. Watson

Smith, Judge.

In this case, we must decide what constitutes a “taking” of the victim’s property so as to support a charge of armed robbery under OCGA § 16-8-41 (a). The trial court found that the State could not *483prove armed robbery under the undisputed facts, because it could not show a “taking” of the victim’s property. Because we conclude that the facts shown could, if proved, support a finding of a taking within the meaning of the offense of armed robbery, we reverse.

The facts established at the preliminary hearing before a magistrate are essentially undisputed. Three juveniles, Christopher…