Providing Strategic Personalized Defense in Harris County
Robbery under Texas Penal Code §29.02 is a second-degree felony carrying 2 to 20 years in prison and fines up to $10,000. What separates robbery from theft is the presence of force, threat, or bodily injury. The state must prove not only that a theft occurred or was being attempted but also that the defendant intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly caused bodily injury to another person, or intentionally or knowingly placed someone in fear of imminent bodily injury or death. Both elements must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
The force or threat element is where robbery cases most often diverge from what the police report describes. In many situations that are charged as robbery, the alleged threat was ambiguous, the contact was incidental, or the complainant’s account of what happened differs significantly from the physical evidence and witness accounts. The state must prove that an intentional or knowing threat was communicated or that bodily injury was actually caused, and the standard of proof required is not satisfied by a complainant’s subjective fear alone.
Eyewitness identification is another frequent issue in robbery cases. These incidents often occur quickly, under stressful conditions, in lighting that limits visibility, and the identification is made by a person who was focused on the perceived threat rather than on memorizing the features of the person who made it. Post-event identifications made through lineups or photo arrays are subject to well-documented reliability concerns, and the procedures used to conduct them in Harris County cases are subject to challenge.
At David Smith Law Firm, every robbery case begins with a separate examination of the theft element and the force or threat element. We understand how these cases are built and where each element is most open to challenge.
When the state alleges robbery through threat rather than physical force, it must prove that the defendant intentionally or knowingly communicated a threat of imminent bodily injury or death. A subjective feeling of fear by the complainant is not sufficient without evidence that a genuine threat was made. The nature of the communication, the circumstances of the encounter, and the complainant’s account must all be examined carefully.
When the state alleges robbery through bodily injury, it must establish that physical harm meeting the legal definition of bodily injury actually occurred and that the defendant caused it recklessly at minimum. Bodily injury requires physical pain, impairment of a physical condition, or disfigurement. The medical evidence and the complainant’s account of how any contact occurred are both subject to review.
In cases where the force or threat element cannot be established beyond a reasonable doubt, the appropriate charge may be theft rather than robbery. The difference between these two charges is a second-degree felony versus a charge determined solely by the value of the property involved. We evaluate whether the state’s evidence genuinely supports the force or threat element or whether the case is better characterized as a theft.
An attempt to commit robbery is a third degree felony in Texas, a significantly lower charge than completed robbery. When the evidence shows that no theft was completed and no actual threat or injury occurred, the question of whether the conduct rose to the level of robbery or only an attempt at a lesser offense is a genuine legal and factual dispute we examine in every case.
More robbery convictions in Texas rest on eyewitness identification than on any other form of evidence, and eyewitness identification is also the most documented source of wrongful convictions in the criminal justice system. These incidents happen fast, under stress, and often in conditions that limit the opportunity for a reliable observation. The identification made shortly after the event, often under the influence of adrenaline and fear, is rarely as reliable as it appears in a police report.
Our firm examines the specific circumstances of every identification made in a robbery case: when it was made, what procedures were used, whether the lineup or photo array was conducted fairly, and whether the description given immediately after the incident is consistent with the person ultimately identified. When identification evidence does not hold up to that scrutiny, we present that analysis clearly and effectively at every stage of the proceeding.
