People v. Patton

9 Citing cases

  1. People v. Sherman

    87 Ill. App. 3d 937 (Ill. App. Ct. 1980)   Cited 10 times

    Rev. Stat. 1977, ch. 38, par. 18-1(a).) In People v. Patton (1978), 60 Ill. App.3d 456, 376 N.E.2d 1099, aff'd (1979), 76 Ill.2d 45, 389 N.E.2d 1174, this court held that a simple purse snatching from the victim's fingertips did not constitute a robbery because there was no evidence of "force or intimidation at overcoming the will of the victim and certainly no resistance on the victim's part." ( 60 Ill. App.3d 456, 459, 376 N.E.2d 1099, 1101.)

  2. People v. Patton

    76 Ill. 2d 45 (Ill. 1979)   Cited 47 times
    Discussing "sufficient violence" under common law approach

    On the defendant's appeal the appellate court, with one justice dissenting, reversed the judgment and remanded the cause to the circuit court of Peoria County with directions to enter a judgment of conviction for the less serious offense of theft from the person. ( 60 Ill. App.3d 456.) We granted the People's petition for leave to appeal. 65 Ill.2d R. 315.

  3. People v. Ortiz

    156 Ill. App. 3d 170 (Ill. App. Ct. 1987)   Cited 17 times
    In People v. Ortiz (1987), 156 Ill. App.3d 170, 509 N.E.2d 633, the court rejected the argument that the force used must have taken place before or contemporaneously with the taking of the property to sustain a robbery conviction. (Ortiz, 156 Ill. App.3d at 174-75.)

    • 2 The second element of armed robbery is that of force; "`the degree of force necessary to constitute robbery must be such that the power of the owner to retain his property is overcome, either by actual violence physically applied, or by putting him in such fear as to overpower his will.'" ( People v. Patton (1978), 60 Ill. App.3d 456, 459, 376 N.E.2d 1099, 1101, quoting People v. Williams (1961), 23 Ill.2d 295, 301, 178 N.E.2d 372, 375.) In People v. Ditto (1981), 98 Ill. App.3d 36, 424 N.E.2d 3, the court noted that even if the initial taking is accomplished without force, the offense is robbery if the departure is accompanied by force.

  4. State v. Carter

    29 Ohio App. 3d 148 (Ohio Ct. App. 1985)   Cited 29 times
    Holding that defendant's conduct in running toward elderly victim at high speed and snatching her purse sufficiently constituted threatened force under robbery statute

    He suggests that the encounter here was so swift that there was no resistance and thus no force. While a showing of resistance by the victim to support the requisite force element in a robbery conviction is required in a number of jurisdictions (see, e.g., People v. Patton, 60 Ill. App.3d 456, 376 N.E.2d 1099, affirmed [1979], 76 Ill.2d 45, 389 N.E.2d 1174), it is unnecessary here to determine whether or not such is the law in Ohio. This court finds resistance under the facts of this case.

  5. People v. Bowel

    129 Ill. App. 3d 940 (Ill. App. Ct. 1985)   Cited 5 times

    This cause is remanded with directions that the court enter a judgment of conviction for the offense of theft from the person pursuant to the jury's verdict and that the defendant be resentenced for the offense of theft from the person. See People v. Patton (1978), 60 Ill. App.3d 456, 376 N.E.2d 1099, aff'd (1979), 76 Ill.2d 45, 389 N.E.2d 1174. Reversed and remanded with directions.

  6. People v. McCarty

    101 Ill. App. 3d 355 (Ill. App. Ct. 1981)   Cited 15 times
    In McCarty, the defendant was convicted of felony theft, which was aggravated because of a prior armed robbery conviction, and he was given probation.

    The supreme court stated "[t]he essential difference between robbery and theft is the absence of use of force or intimidation in the latter." People v. Patton (1978), 60 Ill. App.3d 456, 457, aff'd (1979), 76 Ill.2d 45, 389 N.E.2d 1174. • 1 Robbery, therefore, is considered an aggravated form of theft.

  7. People v. Kennedy

    88 Ill. App. 3d 365 (Ill. App. Ct. 1980)   Cited 7 times
    In People v. Kennedy, 88 Ill.App.3d 365 (1980), this Court affirmed a defendant's conviction for robbery where the defendant grabbed a bank bag from the victim's hand, shoved the victim against the side of a garage, and ran away with the money.

    This court has ruled that the force incidental to the taking of property from one's person is substantially different from the force used to accomplish the taking by overcoming the resistance of the victim. ( People v. Patton (1978), 60 Ill. App.3d 456, 376 N.E.2d 1099, aff'd (1979), 76 Ill.2d 45, 389 N.E.2d 1174.) We believe that the latter force was the type in the instant case. If force is used to injure the victim or to overcome a struggle or resistance by the victim to the taking of his property, the crime is robbery, not theft.

  8. People v. Bradley

    391 N.E.2d 1078 (Ill. App. Ct. 1979)   Cited 5 times

    In the instant case, although defendant admitted taking the money from Boyer, he denied the acts of using or threatening to use force to do so. Use of force or threat by the defendant is a requisite element of the offense of robbery which must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt to sustain a conviction and which must be admitted by a defendant if he wishes to rely on the defense of entrapment. Ill. Rev. Stat. 1977, ch. 38, par. 18-1(a); People v. Patton (1978), 60 Ill. App.3d 456, 376 N.E.2d 1099. "We have repeatedly held the defense of entrapment incompatible with denial of the commission of the acts constituting the offense.

  9. People v. Smith

    66 Ill. App. 3d 957 (Ill. App. Ct. 1978)   Cited 3 times

    We do not believe that this position is sound. • 1, 2 As stated in People v. Patton (3d Dist. 1978), 60 Ill. App.3d 456, 459, 376 N.E.2d 1099: "The gist of that offense [robbery] is the force and intimidation used in the taking from the person against his will [citation]; and the degree of force necessary to constitute robbery must be such that the power of the owner to retain his property is overcome, either by actual violence physically applied, or by putting him in such fear as to overpower his will."