VAN NUYS, CA – A judge here last Thursday in Los Angeles County Superior Court denied a defense motion to reduce felony charges to misdemeanor shoplifting, holding the accused on second degree robbery charges.
During the hearing, Deputy District Attorney Niki Razipour called one witness to testify to the accused’s alleged theft of 4-5 bottles of wine at a Van Nuys 7-Eleven. The prosecution argued that the accused’s actions constituted felony robbery because of the use of a weapon.
In his testimony, the witness, who was an employee of the 7-Eleven which the accused allegedly robbed, described the incident, with the aid of a Bengali interpreter, and said he witnessed the accused grab 4-5 bottles of wine and then asked his colleague if they had seen the accused pay for them, to which they responded no.
The witness added the accused walked out the door and to his car, opened the driver side door, and was standing behind it when the witness opened the front door to the 7-Eleven establishment and asked the man if he was going to pay for the wine.
Instead, the witness said, the accused pulled out a knife in a swinging motion, indicating a foldable knife that required clicking a button to activate the blade. He then allegedly pointed the knife toward the employee saying, “If you come forward, I’ll kill you.”
During cross-examination, the accused’s privately appointed defense counsel, Dana Michael Cole, asked the witness how he understood what the accused had said, as he needed the services of a Bengali interpreter.
The witness explained that he had picked up some English from living here for 10 years, demonstrating his understanding by speaking the accused’s words aloud in court.
Cole also clarified the position of the accused and the witness at the time of the alleged threatening statement, ensuring that the witness was at least 10 feet away from the accused while brandishing the knife, who was also behind his car door.
During final comments, the defense cited the case of the People v. Cooper, where an act of theft becomes robbery only if force or fear is used to retain possession of stolen goods before reaching a place of temporary safety.
Because the accused had already reached his car and was more than 10 feet away from the witness when making the threat—by Judge Diego H. Edber’s estimate—Cole then argued the charge should be shoplifting rather than robbery, and moved to dismiss the charges.
DPD Razipour countered that robbery does not require physical proximity under People v. Cooper, arguing the witness still feared for his safety, as indicated in his testimony, when the accused allegedly brandished the knife and issued a threat.
Judge Edber ruled the accused’s actions met the definition of robbery under California Criminal Code section 1600, which requires that force or fear be used in the commission of a theft. He found that the accused’s threat with a knife was sufficient evidence of fear, upholding the felony charges.
The defense’s Cole stated that under People v. Cooper certain criteria of the cited California Criminal Code did not need to be met and additional considerations could be made, as he described under the People v. Cooper.
But Judge Edber reaffirmed his ruling, stating that sufficient evidence existed for a preliminary hearing where the accused will be arraigned March 20.
