## Facts

- Joe Lear was charged in Maricopa County, Arizona with robbery under § 4602 of the Revised Code of 1928.
- On August 12, 1931, George Gross opened a retail store in Buckeye and placed currency in the cash register and a bag of silver on the counter.
- While Gross was untying or unrolling the bag of silver, Lear grabbed the bag from Gross’s hands and ran out the back door.
- Lear said nothing, displayed no weapon, and used no force beyond the act of grabbing the bag and fleeing.
- Lear admitted taking the bag of silver, which contained $33.
- There was no evidence of threats, intimidation, struggle, resistance, or conduct creating fear.

## Issues

1. Whether taking property from a victim’s hands by a quick snatch, without threats, weapons, intimidation, or force beyond the taking itself, satisfies the statutory requirement that robbery be “accomplished by means of force or fear.”
2. Whether the evidence was sufficient to support a robbery conviction under § 4602.

## Decision

- The Arizona Supreme Court reversed the robbery conviction and remanded for further proceedings.
- The court held the evidence did not prove robbery because the taking was not accomplished by force or fear as required by § 4602.
- The court treated the conduct as a non-robbery theft offense because the victim was not compelled to surrender possession through violence or intimidation.

## Legal Principles

- Robbery requires a felonious taking from the person or immediate presence of another, against the victim’s will, accomplished by means of force or fear.
- The “force” element requires more than the minimal physical effort inherent in seizing and carrying away property; it must involve violence used to overcome resistance or to compel submission.
- A taking accomplished by stealth or sudden snatching, without resistance, threats, weapon display, or intimidation causing fear of immediate injury, is larceny (or its equivalent) rather than robbery.
- Robbery is treated as a crime against the person because it involves a violent invasion of personal security; absent force or fear, the distinctive element of robbery is missing.

## Conclusion

The court reversed Lear’s robbery conviction because a silent, weaponless snatch from the victim’s hands, without additional force to overcome resistance and without intimidation creating fear, does not meet the statutory “force or fear” element of robbery and instead constitutes a property-taking offense.


Lear v. State, 39 Ariz. 313, 6 P.2d 426 (Ariz. 1931)