Must a robbery defendant physically touch stolen property to complete the taking element? State v. Hollen Explained

In State v. Hollen, the Utah Court of Appeals addressed whether a defendant must physically touch stolen property to complete the taking element of robbery. This decision provides important clarification for practitioners handling theft-related criminal appeals.

Background and Facts

Philip Hollen and an accomplice, dressed as clowns, robbed the Million Dollar Saloon in the early morning hours after closing. Upon entering with guns drawn, Hollen directed the manager at gunpoint to open a safe and place approximately $3,000 into a black tote bag. However, when police arrived, Hollen fled and left the bag in the back room without ever personally touching it. Hollen was convicted of aggravated robbery but challenged his conviction on appeal.

Key Legal Issue

The central issue was whether Hollen completed the “taking” element of robbery when he never physically possessed or touched the stolen money. Hollen argued that because he only directed another person to place the money in the bag and never gained manual possession, the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The Court of Appeals rejected Hollen’s argument, holding that taking under Utah’s robbery statute requires only that the defendant exercise control or dominion over the property, not manual possession. The court relied on its prior decision in In re D.B., which established that “there is no ‘taking’ from the immediate presence of another until the victim loses the ability to exercise control over the property.”

Drawing support from numerous other jurisdictions, the court emphasized that requiring physical possession would create “strange results” where identical criminal conduct could yield different charges and penalties based solely on whether the defendant personally handled the stolen items. The court concluded that Hollen exercised the requisite control when he coerced the manager to remove money from the safe at gunpoint.

Practice Implications

This decision clarifies that Utah courts apply a broad interpretation of “taking” in robbery cases, focusing on dominion and control rather than physical possession. Defense attorneys challenging theft convictions should examine whether their client actually exercised control over property, while prosecutors can rely on this precedent when defendants claim insufficient evidence due to lack of physical contact with stolen items.