## Facts

- Intruders entered a vacant restaurant next to a Union Square jewelry store and cut through a shared wall into the store’s safe room during a remodeling weekend.
- The safes had been moved away from the wall, allowing entry through the cut opening.
- The intruders triggered a motion detector briefly, then blocked it and stayed inside until employees arrived the next business day.
- When employees arrived, the intruders used threats and coercion to force them to open the safes.
- The intruders took nearly $4.5 million in jewelry; the owner later obtained a $4 million insurance payment.
- At trial, the prosecution presented an “inside job” theory that the owner conspired to facilitate the theft to obtain insurance proceeds.
- Troy Devin Smith was convicted of robbery in the trial court.

## Issues

1. Whether a robbery is proved when the store owner allegedly consented to the taking, but the property was taken by force or fear from store employees who were unaware of any consent.
2. Whether the “against the will” element of Penal Code § 211 can be satisfied by the will of employees with constructive possession rather than the legal owner’s will.

## Decision

- The California Court of Appeal affirmed the robbery conviction.
- The court held that even if the owner consented to the taking, robbers commit robbery when they take store property by force or fear from the custody and immediate presence of employees who do not know of the owner’s consent.
- The court treated the employees as robbery victims because they had constructive possession of the employer’s property and were compelled by force or fear to surrender it.

## Legal Principles

- Under California Penal Code § 211, robbery protects possessory interests; ownership is not required for victim status.
- Store employees typically have constructive possession of their employer’s property sufficient to support a robbery conviction when property is taken from their immediate presence by force or fear.
- The “against the will” element in § 211 is satisfied when the taking is against the will of the person in possession (including constructive possession), even if the legal owner secretly agreed to the taking.
- Alleged owner collusion does not negate robbery where force or fear is directed at employees who are unaware of and did not consent to the taking.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed Smith’s robbery conviction, ruling that alleged owner consent to an “inside job” does not defeat robbery liability when force or fear is used to take store property from employees’ constructive possession and immediate presence without their knowledge or consent.


People v. Smith, 177 Cal. App. 4th 1478, 100 Cal. Rptr. 3d 24 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009)