Heard v. State

I respectfully dissent. According to the majority, “the crucial question in this case is whether the State provided sufficient evidence j 12to show that the money Heard demanded from Townsend was the property of another person — an element of theft under § 5-36-103(a)(l).” I disagree. The crucial issue in this case is whether the State sustained its burden of proof that Heard acted with the purpose of committing a theft, an element of robbery under § 5-12-102(a) (Repl.2006). Heard set out his argument for directed verdict on two possible bases. First, he asserted that there “has to be a…