Have you or your loved one been charged with the above-reference offense? If so, call Attorney Scambio for a free consultation at 508-796-5737.
The Massachusetts Legislature defines Unarmed Robbery under Massachusetts General Law Chapter 265, § 19( b) as follows:
(b) Whoever, not being armed with a dangerous weapon, by force and violence, or by assault and putting in fear, robs, steals or takes from the person of another, or from his immediate control, money or other property which may be the subject of larceny, shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for life or for any term of years.
The model jury instructions requires the Commonwealth to prove the following in order for the Commonwealth to prove each element of the offense. The Commonwealth must prove each of the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt at trial:
1. DFT took money [property]2 from AVM or from his/her immediate control;
2. DFT either applied force to AVM’s body,3 or put him/her in fear by threatening words or gestures;
3. The force, or the threatening words or gestures, were the cause of DFT obtaining possession of the money [property]; and
4. DFT intended to steal the money [property].
First, the Commonwealth must prove that DFT took money [property] from AVM or from AVM’s immediate control. [<If the evidence presents a question about whether the money or property was taken, include:> A person “takes” money [property] when he transfers money [property] from the alleged victim’s control to his own. It does not matter how far he carried the money [property], as long as DFT transferred possession or control from AVM to himself.4 ]
AVM did not have to own or physically possess the money [property]. The money [property] was within AVM’s “immediate control” if s/he could have readily possessed it physically, but violence or fear overcame his/her will or ability to do so. [The value of the property does not matter as long as it has some value.]
Second, the Commonwealth must prove that DFT either applied force to AVM or put him/her in fear by threatening words or gestures. If he used actual force, the Commonwealth must prove that he applied that force to AVM’s body. The amount of force does not matter as long as it was enough for DFT to obtain AVM’s money [property] against his/her will. When a person uses actual force, the Commonwealth does not have to prove that the person put the alleged victim in fear. If DFT threatened AVM by words or gestures, then, to prove that he used force, the Commonwealth must prove both that AVM was aware of the threat and that s/he was put in fear. [<If threat is made to someone other than AVM, include:> The threatening words or gestures do not have to be directed at AVM, as long as AVM was aware that they were directed at another person and was thereby put in fear.]
Third, the actual force, or the threatening words or gestures, must be the cause of DFT obtaining possession of the money [property].
Fourth, the Commonwealth must prove that DFT intended to steal the money [property]. The Commonwealth must prove that, at the time he took the money [property] against AVM’s will, DFT intended to deprive AVM of it permanently. Intent is a state of mind. It means a person’s purpose or objective. [DFT] acted with an intent to deprive [AVM] of possession of an object permanently, if he had the specific purpose or objective of permanently depriving [AVM] of possession of the object when he did the act.
If you have been charged with this offense and need a trial attorney with real trial experience and trial solutions, or if you have any questions related to this criminal offense, call Attorney Scambio today at 508-796-5737. Remember, before you decide whether to make any statements to law enforcement, discuss that decision with a competent attorney. Attorney Scambio is available six (6) days a week and will take your call to discuss assisting you in your criminal matter.