Posted On:
May 21, 2009
Continuous offense theory
In State v. Mitchell, the S.C. Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of the defendant for armed robbery based on the "continuous offense theory":
This theory “provides that [a robbery] has occurred ‘not only if the perpetrator uses force or intimidation to take possession of the property, but also if force or intimidation is used to retain possession immediately after the taking, or to carry away the property, or to facilitate escape.”[2] Id. (quoting State v. Meyers, 620 So.2d 1160, 1163 (La. 1993)). As articulated by the court of appeals, the theory supports the proposition that “a ‘taking’ is not complete – that is to say, has not come to an end – until the perpetrator has neutralized any immediate interference with his or her possession.” Id. at 480, 649 S.E.2d at 90.
Basically, Mitchell stole some chewing tobacco and was accosted by a store employee at the exit where Mitchell then threatened the employee with a pocket knife. Mitchell's argument was that, because he had already completed the larceny of the chewing tobacco, he should have been charged with assault with intent to kill for brandishing the knife (which carries 20 years), instead of armed robbery (for which he received 20 years).
