The Jersey Lawyer

In State v. Cassady, decided today by the Supreme Court of New Jersey, the Court upheld a trial court’s decision that no actual intent to harm is required for a robbery conviction.  Marcus Cassady was convicted on two counts of second-degree robbery and was sentenced to two ten-year terms of imprisonment to run consecutively.  At the trial of the matter, Cassady’s attorney requested that the jury also be charged on theft as a lesser included offense of robbery because the defendant did not harm or threaten to harm the victim of the alleged robbery.  The trial judge concluded that there was no rational basis for a jury to find that the defendant committed theft and not robbery, in spite of the fact that there was no evidence of an actual intent to harm the victim, and refused to charge the jury on theft as a lesser offense of robbery.

On February 2, 2004 Cassady, who is six feet five inches tall, approached a teller at a bank and gave her a blank withdrawal slip.  Cassady was separated from the teller by a solid counter and bullet-proof glass to a height of about seven feet.  The teller told Cassady that she could not give him any money.  Cassady continued to tell the teller to “please hurry up” and “I know how to get it.”  After a few of these requests, Cassady jumped over the bullet proof glass and on to the counter on the other side.  At this point, the teller ran into an adjacent room and locked herself inside.  The teller conceded that Cassady never threatened to harm her physically.  Cassady took $2,410 from the drawer and ran away.  Cassady later attacked a car salesman while attempting to steal a car.

With respect to the incident with the teller, the trial judge charged the jury on robbery as defined in N.J.S. 2C:15-1.  One of the elements that must be proven by the state in order to prove that a robbery has occurred is that, in the course of committing a theft, the defendant “inflicts bodily injury or uses force upon another” or “threatens another with or purposely puts him in fear of immediate bodily injury.”  The defendant’s lawyer argued that the judge should also charge the jury on theft as a lesser included offense of robbery because a jury could find that the defendant committed the theft without intending to harm the teller.  The judge rejected that request reasoning that “people who go into a bank to take money are prepared for combat.  And they are prepared to hurt people, if they have to hurt people.”  Therefore, there was no rational basis for the jury to acquit the defendant of robbery, but convict him of theft.

The Supreme Court agreed with the trial judge and held that, based on the facts of this case, there was no rational basis for a jury to find that the defendant committed a theft and not a robbery.  Essentially, the Supreme Court held that a defendant can be convicted of robbery even though he did not intend to harm his victim or threaten his victim, if the circumstances are such that the intent to harm is implied and the victim is actually put in fear of harm.  Moreover, the Supreme Court held that, in those circumstances, a defendant is not even entitled to have a trial court charge the jury on the lesser-included offense of theft and allow the jury the opportunity to find that a theft had occurred, but that it was not robbery because there was no intent to harm.  This case is yet another example of courts taking power away from juries to decide the facts in a criminal case.  If you have been charged with any type of theft crime in New Jersey, contact a New Jersey criminal defense lawyer for assistance.