Timing of the ‘Aggravated Element’ in Quasi-Aggravated Robbery : Focusing on Aggravated Conduct During the Act of Theft

In discussing the crime of quasi-robbery with aggravated elements, traditional theories have disagreed on when the aggravating circumstance must be present—during the act of violence or intimidation, the act of theft, or both. The prevailing interpretation of Supreme Court Decision 1973Do1553 has limited aggravating elements to the time of violence or intimidation. However, this ruling did not address cases where such elements exist during the theft. Although quasi-robbery and robbery are treated as having the same level of illegality due to their identical statutory penalties, this is not because the two offenses share the same constituent elements. So interpretations of robbery need not apply to quasirobbery. When the act of theft involves an aggravated mode—such as circumstances that intensify the wrongdoing—the offense is more serious than ordinary larceny. The crime of special robbery similarly involves a causal nexus between the act of violence or intimidation and the taking of property, meaning that it does not differ entirely in its criminal nature from quasi—robbery, in which only the theft itself carries the aggravating factor. In the case of nighttime residential-entry robbery—a subtype of special robbery—the analogous quasi-special robbery should be regarded as one in which the aggravating circumstances are present not during the commission of violence or intimidation, but at the time of the act of theft. Accordingly, it is appropriate to treat offenses involving aggravated circumstances at the time of theft as quasi-special robbery.