The following excerpt is from Webster v. Woodford, 361 F.3d 522 (9th Cir. 2004):
Further, California had also long held that constructive possession of property by the victim was sufficient to meet the requirements of the robbery statute. The jury in this case was instructed that a robbery could occur when the victim was in constructive possession of the property at issue. This comported with prior California case law in which the courts had affirmed robbery convictions when the victims, such as security guards, were not physically present where the robbery occurred and had no actual possession of the
[361 F.3d 532]
property taken. See, e.g., People v. Miller, 18 Cal.3d 873, 135 Cal.Rptr. 654, 558 P.2d 552, 557 (Cal.1977) (In Bank).[361 F.3d 532]
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.