Chicago Criminal Lawyer Blog

July 16, 2015

Champaign Police “2014 Officer of the Year” Charged with Sexual Assault

by Law Offices of David L. Freidberg, P.C.

A Champaign police officer was charged and arraigned in Champaign County on charges of aggravated criminal sexual assault, criminal sexual assault, and aggravated domestic battery, according to a news report. The suspect, Jerad Gale, is alleged to have anally penetrated a 23-year-old woman and tried to strangle her by covering her nose and mouth and pressing her head into a pillow. The woman was Gale’s former girlfriend, a University of Illinois student, who went to UI police on May 5 to inform them about an alleged assault by Gale that happened on November 9, 2013. According to the Champaign county prosecutor in charge, the woman had been in a relationship with Gale from November 2012 to November 2013.

Another woman came forward with allegations against Gale in Piatt County. The woman dated Gale between 2008 and 2012 and lived with him in Monticello where Gale worked as a police officer for three years. Gale was charged and arraigned on two felony counts of criminal sexual assault.

Sexual Assault in Illinois

In order to be convicted of criminal sexual assault in Illinois, prosecutors must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that an individual committed an act of sexual penetration and:

Used force or threat of force;
The victim was unable to understand the nature of the act or was unable to give knowing consent;
The victim was a family member under 18 years old; or
The individual was 17 years of age or older and holds a position of authority, trust, or supervision over the victim who is between 13 and 17 years old.

For a first conviction, the crime is a Class 1 felony and carries a mandatory prison term of four to fifteen years. For a second conviction, it is considered a Class X felony and carries between six to thirty years of imprisonment. Subsequent convictions can result between thirty to sixty years or life imprisonment.

Criminal sexual assault becomes aggravated if it involves the following aggravating factors:

dangerous weapon;
bodily harm;
threatening the life of the victim or another;
commission of another felony;
the victim is sixty years old or older;
the victim is physically disabled;
the accused delivered any controlled substance to the victim;
the accused was armed with a firearm or discharged a firearm; or
The accused discharged a firearm during the offense that caused great bodily harm or death to another person.

Additionally, aggravated criminal sexual assault occurs when an individual commits an act of sexual penetration and:

the victim is eight years old or under and the accused is under seventeen years old.
the victim is between nine through 12 years of age and force or threat of force is involved, and the accused is under seventeen years of age; or
the victim is severely or profoundly mentally disabled.

Aggravated criminal sexual assault is a Class X felony and, for first convictions, carries between six and thirty years of mandatory imprisonment with possible extended terms of ten, fifteen, twenty, twenty-five years, or a natural life term. For second or subsequent convictions, the mandatory prison term is for the accused’s natural life.

Here, Gale is accused of having caused bodily harm to one of the victims during the act of penetration as he allegedly tried to strangle her and pressed her head into a pillow. This may be considered as an aggravating factor, unless Gale can successfully prove consent as a defense.

July 14, 2015

Illinois Man Sentenced for Aggravated Domestic Battery

by Law Offices of David L. Freidberg, P.C.

On July 8, David J. Marks was sentenced to serve three years in the Illinois Department of Corrections followed by a four-year term of mandatory supervised release for his conviction of aggravated domestic battery. He pled guilty to the charge last month.

According to a news report, Marks was arrested in the parking lot of a Best Buy store in Carbondale after a battery incident was reported. According to the officers, they arrived at the Best Buy parking after two private citizens heard the victim cry for help and intervened, which allowed the victim to escape. The victim told police that Marks, her ex-boyfriend, came to her home and abducted her against her will. When they arrived at the Best Buy parking lot, Marks allegedly used a seatbelt to try to strangle her and prevented her from leaving the vehicle. After the private citizens intervened, Marks drove off but was later apprehended.

Domestic Battery Laws in Illinois

Under Illinois statute, a person is guilty of domestic battery if he or she causes bodily harm or makes physical contact of an insulting or provoking nature with any family or household member. The statute does not distinguish between minor or serious injuries – therefore, even minor scratches, bruises, or cuts will suffice for a charge of domestic battery. Even when no injury results from physical contact, a charge may still be brought if the contact was insulting or provoking.

A “family or household member” includes the following individuals:

Spouses or ex-spouses;
Parents, children, stepchildren and other persons related by blood or by marriage;
Individuals who share or formerly shared a common home;
Individuals who have or allegedly have a child in common, or individuals who share or allegedly share a blood relationship through a child;
Individuals who have or have been dating or are engaged; and
Individuals with disabilities and their personal assistants and caregivers.

A first offense of domestic battery is usually charged as a Class A misdemeanor. However, if the defendant has a prior domestic battery conviction, has violated an order of protection, or if other aggravating factors are present, then it is a Class 4 felony. Aggravating factors include causing great bodily harm, permanent disability or disfigurement, if the victim was pregnant when the alleged battery occurred, or battery involving a deadly weapon or strangulation. In the case above, Marks pled guilty to attempting to strangle the victim, which is why he was convicted of aggravated domestic battery.

Penalties for Domestic Battery

The maximum penalty for a Class A misdemeanor is up to one year in jail and a fine of $2,500. Normally, first offenders are eligible for court supervision in most misdemeanor cases. However, with regard to domestic battery, defendants are not eligible for court supervision and the mandatory minimum sentence involves a conviction. A conviction for domestic battery can never be expunged or sealed from a defendant’s record. Therefore, domestic battery is considered to be a more serious offense than other misdemeanors. If the charge is for aggravated domestic battery, is a Class 4 felony and carries a possible sentence of one to three years imprisonment.

July 9, 2015

Convicted Burglar Sentenced to 15 Years in Prison

by Law Offices of David L. Freidberg, P.C.

Ronald E. Kelley Jr., originally from Carterville, IL, was convicted of burglary and attempted residential burglary on April 7 according to a news report. On June 24, he was sentenced to fifteen years in prison for attempted residential burglary and eight years for burglary. He was also required to serve a three-year period of mandatory supervised release on each count.

Kelley was charged with burglarizing an automobile before trying to enter a home in Murphysboro, IL. A woman who lived at the home told dispatchers that she saw a man halfway through her bathroom window. He retreated from her window and fled when she confronted him. The woman later identified the man as Kelley.

According to the police, the woman and car burglary victim gave the same description at the time of the alleged incidents. Officers later found Kelley walking down a road near the homes and searched him. During the search, they found property on Kelley which they identified as having been stolen from a third victim.

Illinois Burglary Law

Under Illinois law, a person commits burglary if he or she enters or remains in a building, house trailer, watercraft, aircraft, motor vehicle, or railroad car without authority, and does so with the intent to commit a felony or theft inside. If convicted, burglary is considered a Class 2 felony in Illinois, which is punishable from three to seven years in prison. Up to four years of probation may be available if there are no convictions of a class 2 felony or greater within the previous ten years. However, if the burglary involved someone’s home, it is considered residential burglary, which is much more serious and considered a class 1 felony. Residential burglary is punishable from four to fifteen years in prison and probation is unavailable.

Possible defenses to burglary may include negating the first element of the offense by proving that the individual had the consent of the owner or occupier of the property to enter. In these cases, there would be no unauthorized entry. Even if the defendant misunderstood the owner and erroneously believed he had permission, the belief in the consent, if reasonable, may be enough to defeat a charge of burglary.

Also, burglary requires that a person have the specific intent to commit theft or a felony once inside the property. If a person was intoxicated, it may be a valid defense to the degree that it kept the defendant from forming the specific intent.

The Reliability of Eyewitness Testimony

As in the case above, eyewitness testimony is often the lynchpin evidence used by prosecutors to achieve a burglary conviction. However, according to the Innocence Project, eyewitness misidentification is the greatest contributing factor to wrongful convictions proven by DNA testing. Eyewitness testimony plays a role in more than 70% of convictions overturned through DNA testing nationwide. In eyewitness identifications, witness memory is often impacted by a variety of factors that occur from the time of the crime onwards, and human memory is vulnerable and easily contaminated. Therefore, eyewitness testimony is often not as accurate as juries often believe it to be, and police eyewitness identification procedures can have a major effect on the accuracy of identifications.

July 7, 2015

Saint Xavier Football Player Charged with Burglary

by Law Offices of David L. Freidberg, P.C.

A Saint Xavier University football player and criminal justice major, Jonathan Gilbreth, was charged with one felony count of burglary on June 26, 2015, according to a news report. At around 3:10 a.m., police responded to a security alarm at an Oak Lawn tobacco store where they saw a man running from the area behind the store. After a brief foot chase, police caught Gilbreth at a nearby backyard and found him in possession of tobacco products from the store. A witness also saw Gilbreth hit the glass door to the tobacco store just before the security alarm went off.

Burglary laws in Illinois

According to Illinois statute, a person commits burglary if he or she:

Enters or remains in a building, house trailer, watercraft, aircraft, motor vehicle, railroad car without authority; and
Does so with the intent to commit a felony or theft inside.

Entering without permission is not enough – prosecutors have to be able to prove that the individual entered (or remained) with the intent to commit theft or some other felony. Here, the police witnessed Gilbreth running from behind the store and found him in possession of products from the store. It is likely the police will have a strong case with circumstantial evidence where Gilbreth’s actions are only consistent with an intent to steal. Additionally, the intended crime does not have to occur – it is enough that an unauthorized entry occurred with a corresponding criminal intention.

Possible defenses to burglary may include negating the first element of the offense by proving that the individual had the consent of the owner or occupier of the property to enter. In these cases, there would be no unauthorized entry. Even if the defendant misunderstood the owner and erroneously believed he had permission, the belief in the consent, if reasonable, may be enough to defeat a charge of burglary.

Also, burglary requires that a person have the specific intent to commit theft or a felony once inside the property. If a person was intoxicated, it may be a valid defense to the degree that it kept the defendant from forming the specific intent.

Penalties for Burglary as a Felony

If proven, burglary is considered a Class 2 felony in Illinois, which is punishable from three to seven years in prison. However, if the individual had not been convicted of a class 2 felony or greater within the previous ten years, up to four years of probation may be available.

However, if the burglary involved someone’s home, it is considered residential burglary, which is much more serious. It becomes a Class 1 felony, which is punishable from four to fifteen years in prison and probation is unavailable.

July 3, 2015

Suspected Arsonists Sought

by Law Offices of David L. Freidberg, P.C.

Illinois state police are investigating a series of six fires that occurred last January that they believe were intentionally caused by two suspected arsonists. The fires involved a historic school house, a house whose occupants managed to run out of the house before it was engulfed, and sheds adjacent to main buildings, all along the same street in Marissa, IL.

Arson in Illinois

Under Illinois law, arson is a Class 2 felony that carries a potential three to seven-year prison sentence. It is the willful act of destroying someone else’s property valued at $150 or more by setting it on fire without permission from the owner. Even if you partly own the property, it is still considered arson if you don’t have a co-owner’s permission permission to set it on fire.

If the property is someone’s residence or is a place of worship, the act of arson becomes a Class 1 felony which is punishable by four to 15 years in prison.

Finally, arson can be counted an aggravated act and is classified as a Class X felony if the perpetrator knows that one or more persons are inside the building, or where someone suffers great bodily harm, permanent disability or disfigurement, or where a fireman or policeman on duty at the scene is injured.

A charge of arson may also be coupled with a charge of possession of explosives or explosive/incendiary devices. According to Illinois statutes, a person commits criminal possession of explosives or incendiary devices if he or she possesses, manufactures, or transports such devices and either intends to use the device to commit any offense. This is also classified as a Class 1 felony and comes with a sentence of four to 30 years in prison.

Expert Testimony in Arson Cases

Often, an arson case will hang on expert testimony from various fire investigators. However, over the years, problems have been identified with the reliability of expert testimony from fire investigators. Unlike other forensic sciences, fire investigations often involve the collection of burn patterns and debris alongside reports by the police, fire fighters, other fire investigators, and medical professionals. They often conduct interviews with eyewitnesses, victims, and the defendant who may disclose potential motives for arson such as vandalism or financial woes. This extra factual information about the offender and events surrounding the fire can be subjective and incorporate the investigator’s thinking on the events or motives of the fire, rather than the plain forensic evidence. This is often undisclosed to juries, and they are left to treat fire investigators’ testimonies as scientific even if they incorporated subjective and non-scientific information into their conclusions. Additionally, the fire investigator may be unknowingly influenced by all of this extra information and may impact his or her opinions and testimony. It may lead the investigator to rule out natural or accidental causes because of the bias that he or she unknowingly develops.

Additionally, there are a lot of differences in procedures and training between state, region, county, police and fire departments and fire investigators. There is no consistent standard across courts and jurisdictions for fire experts to be certified investigators. Much of the fire investigation field’s knowledge base is based out of individual and anecdotal experience about fires, and there is no formal training or specialization required to conduct fire investigations.

June 30, 2015

Murder Conviction Reinstated by Illinois Supreme Court

by Law Offices of David L. Freidberg, P.C.

The Illinois Supreme Court reversed the decision of a lower court of appeals and reinstated the first-degree murder conviction and 70-year sentence of Mark Downs, who shot and killed a 6-year-old boy, Nico Contreras, in his sleep. The convicted murderer fired a gun into a bedroom window at the Aurora home of the victim’s grandparents on July 10, 1996. During the trial. the court instructed the jury that it was their duty to define reasonable doubt in the case, which an appeals court ruled was incorrect and caused the conviction and sentence to be reversed. However, the Illinois Supreme Court said that the instruction given by the judge was correct and that the jury convicted Downs with a proper understanding of reasonable doubt.

No Jury Instruction for Reasonable Doubt in Illinois

In this case, the jury sent a note to the court asking whether its definition of reasonable doubt was 80 percent, 70 percent, or 60 percent. The U.S. Supreme Court has said that the U.S. Constitution does not require or prohibit a definition of reasonable doubt, and in Illinois, trial courts (and attorneys for the prosecution or the defense) are not allowed to provide jury instructions that define reasonable doubt. This is because “reasonable doubt” is difficult to define, and trial judges usually end up substituting other phrases that are equally difficult to understand. Therefore, the Illinois Supreme Court has ruled in the past that “reasonable doubt’ should speak for itself without any attempt at a definition from the trial court.

When Downs appealed his conviction and sentence, he argued that the trial court’s instruction to the jury that it was their duty to define reasonable doubt in this case was erroneous because it violated the prohibition on instructions about reasonable doubt. According to the appellate court, the only acceptable answer would have been to tell the jury that reasonable doubt is not defined as a percentage, and to just inform them that reasonable doubt is the highest standard of proof in law, and that they had received all of the instructions needed to answer its question. However, the Illinois Supreme Court disagreed, saying that in decisions going back a hundred years, it has consistently held that the term “reasonable doubt” doesn’t need to be defined because the words themselves are enough to convey its meaning.

First-degree murder

The shooting occurred during a period in the 1990s when Aurora experienced a long period of street gang violence. It was at this time that Downs and an accomplice, Elias Diaz, reportedly targeted Nico’s uncle for belonging to a rival gang. Elias Diaz allegedly planned the shooting and drove the getaway card. He was convicted and received a 60-year term.

Here, Elias Diaz did not actually carry out the killing. However, there was testimony during the trial that he drove two men to Nico’s house and ordered Downs to shoot a man whom he believed was a rival gang member. Diaz thought that the rival gang member at one time occupied the bedroom in which Nico slept and ordered the shooting to occur there.

In Illinois, first degree murder is defined as performing an act that causes someone to die with the intent to kill that individual or someone else, and with the knowledge that the act will probably cause death or great bodily harm to that individual or someone else. For first-degree murder, it is not necessary that you are the one to actually carry out the act of killing. Ordering someone to commit the act is enough to satisfy the definition.

Additionally, a person will still be guilty of first-degree murder even if the person who dies was not the intended target of the intent to kill. Here, the actual target was Nico’s uncle, and not Nico. However, the Illinois statute explicitly allows the intent to be transferred, and that even if someone else was killed other than the intended victim, it would still be considered first-degree murder.

June 26, 2015

Firearms, Clothing Provide Possible Link to Chicago Home Invasion

by Law Offices of David L. Freidberg, P.C.

Police investigating a Chicago home invasion have recovered firearms and clothing that may further link the suspects, who are already in custody, to the crime. But even if police can prove that the items belonged to the suspects, that fact alone doesn’t prove that the suspects committed the crime.

Eyewitness Testimony

The suspects were arrested based on eyewitness descriptions of the clothing they were wearing during the crime. Police found some articles of clothing and firearms discarded in fields near the location of the home invasion.

But eyewitness identifications are often faulty. According to the Innocence Project, in cases where innocence was proven through subsequent DNA testing, 70% of faulty convictions were the direct result of eyewitness misidentification.

Here, the eyewitness descriptions were based almost entirely on the victim’s clothing. Using clothing as the primary means of identification is inherently unreliable. If the clothing was not distinctive, or if the suspects were wearing a style of clothing popular with young people, an arrest based solely on the clothing description creates a possibility that the police arrested the wrong person. Add to that the inherent untrustworthiness of eyewitness identification generally – eyewitness testimony can be influence by police conduct, statements of other witnesses, news stories on the crime or the passage of time – and it makes the arrests in this case open to casting reasonable doubt that the defendants were the ones who committed the crime.

Proof of Ownership vs. Proof of Use

Proving that the suspects owned the clothing and firearms is not, in and of itself, proof that they committed the crimes.

The police can prove ownership of the guns by tracing serial numbers or matching fingerprints found on the weapons to the suspect’s fingerprints. Proving that the clothing belongs to the suspects may be a bit harder, but forensic experts can likely find hair or skin samples that would link the clothing to the suspects. It may also be easy to find images on Facebook or other social media sites that show the suspects wearing the clothing.

To prove that the suspects committed the crime, the prosecution must obtain forensic evidence that shows the suspects used the items during the commission of the crime. A jury would expect that the owner’s fingerprints would be on the weapon, so that alone does not prove that the suspect was the one who fired the weapon during the home invasion. The weapon could have been stolen, or the suspect could have lent it to a friend or family member who then used it during the crime. The prosecution must have other proof, such as gunpowder residue found on the suspect, to prove that he fired the weapon.

The same is true of the clothing. Even if the prosecution can prove that the suspects owned the specific items of clothing police uncovered, they must prove that they were the ones who actually wore it during the crime, rather than it having been stolen or borrowed by somebody else.

So the defense strategy in this specific case would rely heavily on disputing the prosecution’s forensic evidence linking the items recovered to the suspect’s use and possession during the commission of the crime. An independent forensic expert would examine all of the prosecution’s evidence to determine if the firearms and clothing could have been used by anybody other than the suspects.

June 25, 2015

Child Abuse, Mandatory Reporters and Illinois Law

by Law Offices of David L. Freidberg, P.C.

The recent revelation that Josh Duggar, oldest son of “19 Kids and Counting” stars Jim Bob and Michelle Duggar, molested at least three of his sisters and an unrelated female when he was 14 years old has raised questions about criminal prosecution of child sexual abuse cases and who qualifies as a mandatory reporter.

Statute of Limitations for Illinois Child Sexual Abuse

With the exception of murder and several other violent crimes, every crime has a statute of limitations attached to it. The statute of limitations specifies the amount of time the prosecutor has to file charges against a suspect for his alleged involvement in the crime. In Illinois, the statute of limitations for aggravated criminal sexual abuse (defined as sexual contact with a minor who is a family member) is 10 years, if the victim reported the crime within three years of commission of the crime.

In certain circumstances, however, the statute of limitations is tolled. This means that the time limit does not start running until a different time as specified under law. In Illinois, the statute of limitations for aggravated criminal sexual abuse doesn’t begin to run until the victim turns 18, at which point she has 20 years to press charges. So if a child is sexually assaulted when she is three years old, she has until she is 38 years old to press charges against her alleged attacker – meaning the abuser can potentially be prosecuted for his crime 35 years after it happened.

Many people have questioned why charges cannot now be filed against Josh Duggar. If the abuse had taken place in Illinois, the Duggar sisters, who are in their early 20s, would still be able to press charges, as the statute of limitations only began to run when they turned 18. However, there is a difference between whether a crime may be prosecuted from a legal standpoint, and whether it may be prosecuted from a practical one. It appears that the sisters would make very uncooperative witnesses, which would make it difficult for the prosecution to move forward with a case. This is not an uncommon occurrence in sex crimes cases; the prosecution can have sufficient evidence to corroborate the crime, but is unlikely to move forward if the victim expresses an unwillingness to cooperate.

Illinois Mandatory Reporters and Child Sexual Abuse

In a televised interview discussing the abuse, the Duggar parents said that they did not initially report the abuse to the authorities because they are not mandatory reporters. A mandatory reporter is any person required by law to report a suspicion of child abuse or neglect, and includes teachers, doctors, daycare workers and therapists. Parents are not mandatory reporters in Illinois.

However, parents have a responsibility to protect their child from harm, and while failing to report your child for sexual abuse may not lead to criminal prosecution under the mandatory reporting statute, it could lead to criminal charges of neglect or child endangerment for failing to remove either the victim or the abuser from the home in order to protect the victim from further abuse.

June 19, 2015

Palatine Man Acquitted of First-Degree Murder for Punch to Head

by Law Offices of David L. Freidberg, P.C.

A Palatine man was acquitted of first-degree murder charges in early June following a jury trial. The defendant sent a fellow bar patron to the hospital following a single punch to the head; the victim died 10 days later. The defendant claimed he threw the punch in self-defense during a bar brawl.

Self-defense and First Degree Murder

The defense in this case was a two-pronged approach that involved self-defense and lack of specific intent.

First-degree murder

First-degree murder is a specific intent crime, which means that the defendant must have:

Intended to kill or cause great bodily harm to the victim;
Knew that his actions could result in death or great bodily harm, or;
Committed a forcible felony.

In this case, the victim died 10 days after being punched in the side of the head by the defendant. A forensic expert testified that the majority of the brain damage suffered by the victim was a result of the blow to the head, and not the subsequent fall to the ground. Jury verdict aside, it is difficult to see how the prosecution could successfully argue that the defendant had the specific intent required for a first-degree murder charge.

The punch occurred during the middle of a bar fight, where many participants were throwing punches and putting hands on each other. There was no indication that anybody was intent on causing deadly harm – it was just an ordinary bar fight, and the defendant jumped into the fray. His intent was to hit the victim, not to kill him or cause great bodily harm.

Nor does it seem plausible at all for the defendant to have known that his punch to the side of the victim’s head could result in death or great bodily harm. Unless the defendant was a prizefighter – and even prizefighters take heavy blows to the head on a routine basis and do not die as a result – nobody would believe that a bare-knuckled punch to the head would result in anything worse than a mild concussion. No laughing matter, but certainly not great bodily harm.

Without the victim’s subsequent death, the defendant committed battery – not aggravated battery – so the crime does not meet the criteria for first-degree murder under the forcible felony rule.

Self-defense

Under Illinois law self-defense is an affirmative defense for the use of force. The use of force must have been based on a reasonable belief that the action was “necessary to defend himself or another against such other’s imminent use of unlawful force.” The use of deadly force, or force likely to cause death or great bodily harm, is justified only to defend against similar use of force.

In this case, regardless of whether the defendant has a reasonable belief that the victim was about to assault either the defendant or his friend (which was the defendant’s justification for his use of force), the same argument against a conviction for first-degree murder applies here. There is no way the defendant could have known that a punch to the side of the head was going to result in the victim’s death. That the punch did cause the victim’s death was a freak accident.

The prosecution in this case gambled with an all-or-nothing approach and lost. Instead of allowing the jury to convict the defendant on lesser charges – manslaughter or felony battery, for instance – the only option offered was first-degree murder. Once the jury decided that the defendant did not have the requisite intent to convict on a first-degree murder charge, they had no choice but to acquit.

June 17, 2015

Chicago Man Arrested for Armed Robbery of Clothing Stores

by Law Offices of David L. Freidberg, P.C.

A Chicago man was arrested for allegedly committing armed robbery at knifepoint several clothing stores in Lincoln Park and Bucktown during broad daylight.

Chicago Armed Robbery Charge

Under Illinois law a person commits armed robbery if he:

Knowingly;
Takes property;
From the person or presence of another;
By force or threat of imminent use of force.

Conviction on an armed robbery charge requires that the prosecution prove each of these four elements. If a single element cannot be proven, then the armed robbery charge must be either dismissed or reduced.

Knowingly

As discussed in previous blog entries, the “knowingly” requirement means that armed robbery is a specific intent crime. The defendant must have actually intended to forcibly take property from another person. This element isn’t usually difficult for the prosecution to prove, as it is hard to imagine a situation where a person could mistakenly take another person’s property by force. The one example that jumps to mind would be a situation where the defendant takes property from another under the mistaken belief that it was his (the defendant’s) property.

Takes property

It is unclear whether the defendant stole merchandise, cash from the store, personal belongings of shop attendants and/or customers, or a combination. But for purposes of committing armed robbery, it doesn’t matter the type or value of the item taken; there simply had to be property stolen.

The defendant was charged with robbery of multiple stores, and charges for robbery from other stores may be pending. The prosecution must prove that for each charged incident, the defendant actually took property from a person, or in their presence (more on that below). This element is the difference between a charge of armed robbery and aggravated battery or aggravated assault.

If the defendant ran out of the store without taking any property – he got spooked that the cops were coming or was chased off, for example – then he could not be charged with armed robbery. He could be charged with battery (if he made contact with anybody in the store) or assault (no contact, but put them in fear of contact), but not armed robbery, since no property would be taken. Being able to reduce even one of the armed robbery charges to aggravated assault or battery could mean the difference between several years in prison.

From the person or presence of another

Armed robbery requires that the property be taken from the person (think grabbing a purse out of a woman’s hands), or in their presence (swiping something from the counter as the cash register attendant looks on). If an item was stolen from the counter while the salesperson was in the back, then the defendant cannot be convicted of armed robbery.

By force or threat of imminent use of force

The final element of armed robbery requires that the defendant stole the item by force or by threatening the use of imminent force. Grabbing the purse out of the victim’s hands qualifies as force. Threatening the victim with a stabbing, beating, or some other use of force if he doesn’t turn over the property qualifies as a threat of force. Even if it is later shown that the defendant was bluffing – that he in fact had no weapon on him, so the threatened use of a knife or other weapon could never have been fulfilled – he can still be charged with armed robbery. Putting the victim in fear of physical harm is sufficient to meet this element.