Dahlmer is likely to be convicted of second degree robbery
because
there is sufficient evidence to establish beyond reasonable doubt that
Ezeemony was "actually present" and aided him when he robbed Marvin.(CONCLUSION)
Under Connecticut law, a person is guilty of robbery when he uses or
threatens the use of force during the commission of a larceny. A person
is guilty of robbery in the second degree when he is aided in the commission
of the robbery by (1) a deadly weapon or dangerous instrument or (2) another
person who is actually present. (RULE STATED)
Dahlmer clearly is guilty of robbery because he threatened Marvin with
the use of force when committing a larceny. The threat of force can be
express or implied, as was the case here. Dahlmer, a large and muscular
man, told Marvin that he "wouldn't mess with" him if he opened the cash
register. Marvin reasonably feared that Dahlmer would "squash him like
a bug" if he refused. This implied use of force is sufficient to constitute
the offense of robbery and this finding is buttressed by Dahlmer' threat
to see Marvin dead if Marvin did not lie down on the floor until Dahlmer
escaped with the money he had taken from the cash register.
(RULE
APPLIED)
Since nothing in the facts indicate that a deadly weapon or dangerous
instrument was used by Dahlmer or Ezeemony in the commission of the robbery,
Dahlmer can be convicted of robbery in the second degree only if he was
aided by another person actually present during the commission of the robbery.
The critical issue to be addressed is whether Ezeemony was "actually present"
during the robbery of Marvin. As explained below, he was.
(Conclusion
Stated)
Connecticut courts have held that the term "actually present" requires
the accomplice to be both temporally and physically proximate to the robbery
such that the victim is aware of the accomplice during the robbery. The
rationale for treating a robbery aided by an accomplice more severely is
because the presence of an accomplice generates a greater degree of fear
in the victim and poses a greater risk to the victim's physical safety.
(Rule
Stated and Proved)
It might be argued that Dahlmer is not guilty of second degree robbery
because Marvin was unaware that Ezeemony was in fact Dahlmer' accomplice
and thus his presence could not have generated a higher degree of fear
in Marvin. This argument lacks merit. The legislature's dominant reason
for proscribing accomplice assisted robbery was such crimes posed a greater
threat to the victim's safety. This purpose would be frustrated if Dahlmer
were to be acquitted merely because Marvin was unaware that Ezeemony was
in fact Dahlmer' accomplice. Indeed, such a construction would lead to
increased danger to victims because robbers would take care to ensure their
accomplices were not identifiable as such to their victims, as Dahlmer
did here. A statute is not to be construed to exalt a technicality over
substance. (COUNTER ARGUMENT)
In contrast to a getaway driver, who is unknown to and unseen by the
victim and who provides no aid to the robber during the commission of the
offense, Ezeemony played a significant role in the commission of the robbery. [FACTUAL
THESIS STATED].
He arrived at Marvin's store before
Dahlmer entered and left after Dahlmer took the money. He was stationed
approximately 45 feet from the cash register and acted as Dahlmer' lookout
and was prepared to aid Dahlmer if anyone tried to enter the store while
the robbery was in progress.
Marvin was aware of Ezeemony's presence and that he wasn't going to
help him. Ezeemony has confessed his purpose was to render aid to Dahlmer
during the commission of the robbery if needed and he was in a position
to render such aid. In these circumstances, Ezeemony's presence constituted
an added threat to Marvin's safety, which is among the dangers the legislature
sought to deter when it passed the second degree robbery statute. Accordingly,
Dahlmer is likely to be convicted of second degree robbery. (CONCLUSION
RESTATED)
