State v. Tvedt, 153 Wash. 2d 705

Summary

The Washington Supreme Court addressed whether Ronald Tvedt's four first-degree robbery convictions violated double jeopardy. The court held that the unit of prosecution for robbery is each separate forcible taking of property from or from the presence of a person with an ownership, representative, or possessory interest, while multiple counts may not be based solely on multiple items taken in a single taking or multiple employees present during one taking. The court affirmed the four convictions.

Holdings

1. The unit of prosecution for robbery is each separate forcible taking of personal property from or from the presence of a person having an ownership, representative, or possessory interest in the property, against that person's will.
2. Multiple robbery convictions may not be based merely on multiple items of property taken from the same person at the same time.
3. A single taking of business property from or from the presence of multiple employees cannot support multiple robbery convictions merely because each employee has authority over, or dominion and control of, the property.
4. Tvedt's four robbery convictions did not violate double jeopardy because the stipulated facts established four separate forcible takings from four persons with qualifying interests in the property.
5. The charging information adequately supported four robbery convictions because unnecessary references to additional persons could be disregarded as surplusage, and Tvedt showed no prejudice.

Questions Presented

1. What is the unit of prosecution for robbery under RCW 9A.56.190 for purposes of determining whether multiple convictions violate double jeopardy?
2. May multiple robbery convictions be based solely on multiple items taken from the same person during one taking?
3. May multiple robbery convictions be based solely on a single taking of business property from or in the presence of multiple employees who have authority or control over the property?
4. Did the charging document properly support four robbery convictions despite naming multiple persons in connection with the cash takings?

Disposition

affirmed