Wilson Fire Attack Case Study

The issue is whether the taking was in concurrence with the violence and intimidation Ms. Wilson used against the security guard.
Brief Answer
No. Ms. Wilson’s taking was most likely in concurrence with the violence and intimidation she used and thus the court is likely to find her guilty of robbery.
Facts
Our client Lynette Wilson was recently arrested for robbery. Wilson walked into Freda's Fine Things in Fredericksburg, Virginia. She purchased a silver-studded belt for $40.00 and continued perusing. While perusing Ms. Wilson started to pick up ten bottles of perfume one by one and placed them in her purse. Most of the bottles placed into the purse retail at more than $150 each. The store's undercover security guard, Amare Sitota, watched Wilson as she placed the perfume bottles in her purse. As she started to leave Sitota leaped in Wilson's path and shouted, "Where do you think you are going? Hand over the bag and the perfume." Wilson then took a
Commonwealth, if the taking was complete when Ms. Wilson used violence and intimidation then the elements of robbery would not be met. However, in that case Mason had already completed the taking because he had transferred the property to a confederate before he used violence and intimidation. Here, the facts are more similar to Beard v. Commonwealth, where the court ruled that the elements of robbery are met if one uses violence or intimidation in concurrence with the taking. In that case Beard was intercepted by someone trying to stop him from escaping with the property when he used violence and intimidation on them. Since his escape was not complete the taking and violence and intimidation concurred at the same time, hence making him guilty of robbery. Here, Ms. Wilson was trying to leave with the property (make her escape) when the security guard tried to stop her. When she used violence and intimidation it was in concurrence with her escape with the property, thus the taking was not