The People, Plaintiff and Respondent v. Paul D. Anderson, Defendant and Appellant

Summary

The court held that robbery requires a forcible act motivated by the intent to steal, but does not require an additional intent to apply force to or frighten the victim. It also held that a trial court has no sua sponte duty to instruct on accident when the defendant uses accident only to negate an element of the charged offense, and that such an instruction would have been improper here because defendant's theory added a nonexistent intent element. The court therefore reversed the Court of Appeal's judgment.