How have the courts treated the issue of whether or not a defendant committed a robbery if they took tools for no reason?

The prosecutor did not tell the jury that appellant committed a robbery if he took the tools for no reason, or that taking advantage of a situation to steal something was sufficient. She argued that taking advantage of an atmosphere of fear and intimidation to take the tools would satisfy the fear prong of the force or fear element of robbery. This argument did not misstate the law. People v. Anderson (2011) 51 Cal.4th 989, a case cited by appellant, holds that " 'the act of force or intimidation by which the taking is accomplished in robbery must be motivated by an intent to steal . . . .' [Citation.]" (Id. at p. 994.) Appellant ignores the fact that the word "or" is disjunctive, requiring either the use of force or the use of fear to accomplish the theft. The prosecutor did not commit misconduct by highlighting this fact for the jury.

The decision whether to object during opposing counsel's arguments in a criminal trial " 'is inherently tactical, and the failure to object will rarely establish ineffective assistance.' [Citations.]" (People v. Lopez (2008) 42 Cal.4th 960, 972.) "[C]ompetent counsel may often choose to forgo even a valid objection. '[I]n the heat of a trial, defense counsel is best able to determine proper tactics in the light of the jury's apparent reaction to the proceedings. The choice of when to object is inherently a matter of trial tactics not ordinarily reviewable on appeal.' [Citation.]" (People v. Riel (2000) 22 Cal.4th 1153, 1197.) This case is not an exception, especially in light of the fact that

Page 14