Section 1863 | CALCRIM (Jury Instructions)

the robber’s direction, including the victim, moves the property, the element of
taking is satisfied. (People v. Martinez (1969) 274 Cal.App.2d 170, 174 [79
Cal.Rptr. 18]; People v. Price (1972) 25 Cal.App.3d 576, 578 [102 Cal.Rptr. 71].)
Claim of Right
If a person honestly believes that he or she has a right to the property even if that
belief is mistaken or unreasonable, such belief is a defense to robbery. (People v.
Butler (1967) 65 Cal.2d 569, 573 [55 Cal.Rptr. 511, 421 P.2d 703]; People v. Romo
(1990) 220 Cal.App.3d 514, 518 [269 Cal.Rptr. 440] [discussing defense in context
of theft]; see CALCRIM No. 1863, Defense to Theft or Robbery: Claim of Right.)
This defense is only available for robberies when a specific piece of property is
reclaimed; it is not a defense to robberies perpetrated to settle a debt, liquidated or
unliquidated. (People v. Tufunga (1999) 21 Cal.4th 935, 945–950 [90 Cal.Rptr.2d
143, 987 P.2d 168].)
Fear
A victim’s fear may be shown by circumstantial evidence. (People v. Davison
(1995) 32 Cal.App.4th 206, 212 [38 Cal.Rptr.2d 438].) Even when the victim
testifies that he or she is not afraid, circumstantial evidence may satisfy the element
of fear. (People v. Renteria (1964) 61 Cal.2d 497, 498–499 [39 Cal.Rptr. 213, 393
P.2d 413]; People v. Collins (2021) 65 Cal.App.5th 333, 341 [279 Cal.Rptr.3d 407].)
Force—Amount
The force required for robbery must be more than the incidental touching necessary
to take the property. (People v. Garcia (1996) 45 Cal.App.4th 1242, 1246 [53
Cal.Rptr.2d 256] [noting that force employed by pickpocket would be insufficient],
disapproved on other grounds in People v. Mosby (2004) 33 Cal.4th 353, 365, fns.
2, 3 [15 Cal.Rptr.3d 262, 92 P.3d 841].) Administering an intoxicating substance or
poison to the victim in order to take property constitutes force. (People v. Dreas
(1984) 153 Cal.App.3d 623, 628–629 [200 Cal.Rptr. 586]; see also People v. Wright
(1996) 52 Cal.App.4th 203, 209–210 [59 Cal.Rptr.2d 316] [explaining force for
purposes of robbery and contrasting it with force required for assault].)
Force—When Applied
The application of force or fear may be used when taking the property or when
carrying it away. (People v. Cooper (1991) 53 Cal.3d 1158, 1165, fn. 8 [282
Cal.Rptr. 450, 811 P.2d 742]; People v. Pham (1993) 15 Cal.App.4th 61, 65–67 [18
Cal.Rptr.2d 636]; People v. Estes (1983) 147 Cal.App.3d 23, 27–28 [194 Cal.Rptr.
909].)
Immediate Presence
Property that is 80 feet away or around the corner of the same block from a forcibly
held victim is not too far away, as a matter of law, to be outside the victim’s
immediate presence. (People v. Harris (1994) 9 Cal.4th 407, 415–419 [37
Cal.Rptr.2d 200, 886 P.2d 1193]; see also People v. Prieto (1993) 15 Cal.App.4th
210, 214 [18 Cal.Rptr.2d 761] [reviewing cases where victim is distance away from
property taken].) Property has been found to be within a person’s immediate
ROBBERY AND CARJACKING
CALCRIM No. 1600
1113

68 Cal.App.2d 674, 679 [157 P.2d 4