kansas appellate practice handbook - Kansas Judicial Branch

12-90 Forms
4
In order to prove that Mr. Doe took the magazine from Drew and Jones by force
or threat of bodily harm, therefore, the State had to prove that Mr. Doe used that force or
threat of bodily harm as a means of taking the property. Such an interpretation is consistent
with the plain language of the statute. Even if this Court disagrees, however, it must at least
acknowledge that the language of the statute is ambiguous, and interpret that ambiguity
strictly in favor of Mr. Doe. State v. Knight, 44 Kan. App. 2d 666, 681, 241 P.3d 120 (2010).
Such an interpretation of K.S.A. 21-3427 is also consistent with our Supreme Court’s
holding in State v. Aldershof, 220 Kan. 798, Syl. 1, 556 P.2d 371 (1976). In Aldershof, two
sisters were sitting in a booth in a drinking establishment. One of the women got up to use
the restroom and left her sister to watch over her purse, which was sitting on the table. While
the woman was in the restroom, the defendant came to the booth and took both women’s
purses: one from its position on the table, and the other from the remaining woman’s lap.
She immediately ran after him, followed him to the parking lot, and managed to grab him
on the back of his shirt. He then turned and struck her in the eye with his hand. A jury
convicted him of robbery. Aldershof, 220 Kan. at 799.
On appeal, the defendant argued that, because “the undisputed evidence show[ed]
that no force or threat was used in the taking of the purses,” and that “any force or violence
in the case came after the purses had already been stolen,” he was, at most, guilty of
“theft, not robbery.” Aldershof, 220 Kan. at 799-800. Our Supreme Court recognized that
“the general rule is that the violence or intimidation must precede or be concomitant or
contemporaneous with the taking.” Aldershof, 220 Kan. at 800. After adopting this general
rule, the Court stated that the appropriate test to determine whether one is guilty of robbery
or merely theft is “whether or not the taking of the property has been completed at the time
the force or threat is used by the defendant.” Aldershof, 220 Kan. at 803. Applying this test
to the facts before it, the Court held that the taking of the purses was complete when the
defendant “snatched the purses and left the premises of the tavern” because, at that point,
he had “obtained control over the purses with the intent to deprive the owner permanently
2013