Aggravated Robbery With a Deady Weapon

Since I'm not the one on trial i suppose its not really my business, but mind you about half the questions on this site are being asked by a friend or family member, not everyone comes here to talk about themselves.

And since I'm in the crime section of this forum, and since robbery is becoming more and more common these days, yes i thought there would be quite a few people here who knew someone who had been charged with the same or similar offense.

Quote:

---

Quoting nlxo

---

Since I'm not the one on trial i suppose its not really my business, but mind you about half the questions on this site are being asked by a friend or family member, not everyone comes here to talk about themselves.

And since I'm in the crime section of this forum, and since robbery is becoming more and more common these days, yes i thought there would be quite a few people here who knew someone who had been charged with the same or similar offense.

---

Clearly, you are mistaken.

Quote:

---

Quoting Dogmatique

---

Clearly, you are mistaken.

---

Apparently.

There is definitely a possibility of him being found not guilty, even with all the evidence against him. Take the OJ Simpson trial for example lol

I would assume the main problem is going to be the witnesses. Having multiple people saying they saw you at the scene of a crime is going to be hard to dispute. And if he isn't going to testify then its going to be even harder for him to dispute this because he won't be able to give his alibi.

Another problem might be the evidence they have linking him to the scene of the crime. If he touched anything on his way in or out of the house, the police probably found and collected those prints. And i get the feeling that would probably be what gets him a guilty verdict, because if he didn't know these people and had never been to their house before, why would his prints be there unless he was the robber? But thats assuming he left his prints behind and the police found them, which might not have happened. He could have worn gloves, but then again he didn't wear a mask so obviously he wasn't thinking very far ahead that day lol

And the gun? You didn't mention if the police found it on him when he was arrested. He'd probably have a better chance at winning this case or at least getting the charge reduced if he ditched the gun before he got caught.

Like i said it looks pretty bad for this guy but anything is possible.

Quote:

---

Quoting nlxo

---

A little information: He broke into a house while the family was home and attempted to rob them. No property was actually taken because he bailed at the last second. None of the family was harmed however he did present a weapon. The family did see his face as he was not wearing a mask.

---

Then the odds of conviction after trial are roughly 100%.

Quote:

---

Quoting nlxo

---

There were other witnesses (neighbors) who saw him trying to get away. We was pulled over not far from the house and arrested. Co defendant took a plea agreement and MAY have to testify against him.

---

Still roughly 100%.

Quote:

---

Quoting nlxo

---

He has some priors so he probably won’t be testifying on his own behalf.

---

He presumably would not testify at trial because, prior convictions aside, he's guilty. Based on his honest testimony alone, his chance of conviction would be roughly 100%.

Quote:

---

Quoting nlxo

---

That being said, my question is what is the likelihood of him being found not guilty at trial?

---

Roughly 0%.

Quote:

---

Quoting nlxo

---

He didn't commit a "crime against persons." The only thing he planned to do was steal property, and when he realized the people were home, he bolted rather than hurting anyone or getting into a scuffle.

---

Based on your description of the crime, he intended to confront the occupants of the home in order to try to get whatever it was that he believed that they possessed. You also make it sound like he and his friend were desperate junkies.

Quote:

---

Quoting nlxo

---

By presented a weapon I dont I made myself clear. He didn't pull one out or point it at anyone. It was visible tucked into the front of his pants. Also, the gun wasn't loaded. It was supposed to be a scare tactic but I guess he chickened out and couldn't do it.

---

He couldn't do what? He was brandishing the gun, so obviously he wasn't to scared to brandish. If you mean he was too afraid to shoot somebody, you just told us that the gun wasn't loaded.

Quote:

---

Quoting Who'sThatGuy

---

So I think with his criminal record and being robbery in Texas is considered a violent crime, he is going to see a minimum of 5 years in prison.

---

Depending on his record, probably more like 20 - 50. If he was terrorizing children, all bets are off.

Quote:

---

Quoting jk

---

if you are only breaking into a home and have no intent of confronting residents, there is absolutely no reason to have a gun. If you intend on confronting residents and threatening them, or worse, you would want a gun. The fact a gun was present shows intent.

---

I don't think it's a universal that a burglar's possession of a firearm means that he wants to confront a homeowner; but in the case under discussion we were told "He broke into a house while the family was home and attempted to rob them", so here there was the intent to confront the homeowner. Odds are he was operating on the assumption that the homeowner was a drug dealer, and was hoping to get a stash of drugs and money, or that the homeowner was one of the unfortunate people who is the subject of a neighborhood rumor that he has a large amount of cash or other valuables hidden in his house.

Quote:

---

Quoting nlxo

---

The reason i say 'no sense in judging when you weren't even there,' is because no one knows what was going on in his head or what his intent was no matter how bad it looks....

---

Actually, you can make pretty strong inferences based on the facts. He wanted something that didn't belong to him, so he and his buddy got a gun, broke into a home, and terrorized a family as part of their effort to get it. And yes, you can make lots of inferences about his (lack of) character based on his actions.

Quote:

---

Quoting nlxo

---

Obviously everyone is taking my responses the wrong way. No, its in no way shape or form okay to have a gun even if its not loaded. All i was trying to say was that he may have had plans to scare them, if it turned out they were home, but definitely not hurt them.

---

You've already told us that he knew that they were home. You have told us that he was going to use the firearm for [something] but "chickened out". He wasn't planning to wave an unloaded firearm around an empty house.

Quote:

---

Quoting nlxo

---

What i've heard is that if you testify on your own behalf, when the prosecutor is questioning you he can bring up your priors.

---

Priors can potentially come in as evidence of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, absence of mistake, or lack of accident -- and that can happen without the defendant's testimony. Odds are, though, that you're thinking about prior acts of theft which, if a defendant testifies, can often come into evidence to impeach a witness's character for truthfulness.

Quote:

---

Quoting nlxo

---

I asked this question assuming there would be some people here who had either friends or family who were involved in a similar case and could enlighten me on what went down at trial.

---

People coming up against overwhelming evidence of guilt rarely take their cases to trial unless they are not offered a plea bargain that reduces their potential exposure. When they do take this type of case to trial, odds of conviction are roughly 100%.

Quote:

---

Quoting cloudedspeed

---

There is definitely a possibility of him being found not guilty, even with all the evidence against him. Take the OJ Simpson trial for example lol

---

Sure. We can estimate his chance of acquittal under the facts given as roughly .0000000000000001%.

Most likely guilty verdict at trail,given his priors a plea deal is the best way to go.

1. He got priors
2. He broke in to someone home
3. He did #2 with a weapon.
4. He probably a felon,the gun could be another charge.
5. The other person is gonna snitch

Texas doesn't mess around,he could get 25-40 plus years. (Those kinda of numbers are very realistic considering his priors,unless his lawyer thinks he can beat the charge at trail,then he got at least see what kind of plea offer he is getting).

Quote:

---

Quoting Mr. Knowitall

---

I don't think it's a universal that a burglar's possession of a firearm means that he wants to confront a homeowner; but in the case under discussion we were told "He broke into a house while the family was home and attempted to rob them", so here there was the intent to confront the homeowner. Odds are he was operating on the assumption that the homeowner was a drug dealer, and was hoping to get a stash of drugs and money, or that the homeowner was one of the unfortunate people who is the subject of a neighborhood rumor that he has a large amount of cash or other valuables hidden in his house.

---

And some criminals are finding out who are cancer patients in the area and where they live. Cancer patients are prescribed opiates and that is the number one drug of choice other then heroin for addicts.

Quote:

---

Quoting Mr. Knowitall

---

Then the odds of conviction after trial are roughly 100%.

Still roughly 100%.

He presumably would not testify at trial because, prior convictions aside, he's guilty. Based on his honest testimony alone, his chance of conviction would be roughly 100%.

Roughly 0%.

Based on your description of the crime, he intended to confront the occupants of the home in order to try to get whatever it was that he believed that they possessed. You also make it sound like he and his friend were desperate junkies.

He couldn't do what? He was brandishing the gun, so obviously he wasn't to scared to brandish. If you mean he was too afraid to shoot somebody, you just told us that the gun wasn't loaded.

Depending on his record, probably more like 20 - 50. If he was terrorizing children, all bets are off.

I don't think it's a universal that a burglar's possession of a firearm means that he wants to confront a homeowner; but in the case under discussion we were told "He broke into a house while the family was home and attempted to rob them", so here there was the intent to confront the homeowner. Odds are he was operating on the assumption that the homeowner was a drug dealer, and was hoping to get a stash of drugs and money, or that the homeowner was one of the unfortunate people who is the subject of a neighborhood rumor that he has a large amount of cash or other valuables hidden in his house.

Actually, you can make pretty strong inferences based on the facts. He wanted something that didn't belong to him, so he and his buddy got a gun, broke into a home, and terrorized a family as part of their effort to get it. And yes, you can make lots of inferences about his (lack of) character based on his actions.

You've already told us that he knew that they were home. You have told us that he was going to use the firearm for [something] but "chickened out". He wasn't planning to wave an unloaded firearm around an empty house.

Priors can potentially come in as evidence of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, absence of mistake, or lack of accident -- and that can happen without the defendant's testimony. Odds are, though, that you're thinking about prior acts of theft which, if a defendant testifies, can often come into evidence to impeach a witness's character for truthfulness.

People coming up against overwhelming evidence of guilt rarely take their cases to trial unless they are not offered a plea bargain that reduces their potential exposure. When they do take this type of case to trial, odds of conviction are roughly 100%.

Sure. We can estimate his chance of acquittal under the facts given as roughly .0000000000000001%.

---

He broke into the house while the family was home.
NO, HE DID NOT KNOW THEY WERE HOME UNTIL HE WAS ALREADY INSIDE.
He figured the house was PROBABLY empty, but incase it wasn't, THATS WHY HE BROUGHT THE GUN.
The gun was supposed to be a scare tactic, IN THE EVENT THEY WERE HOME, WHICH HE DIDNT KNOW IF THEY WERE OR NOT.
And by "chickened out," clearly he didn't chicken out of shooting anyone because THE GUN WASNT LOADED.
He chickened out of two things:
#1 pulling the gun out and pointing it at them as a scare tactic
#2 robbing them
As soon as he realized they were home he bolted
His plan was to hopefully rob an empty house, but if they ended up being home, his plan was to then scare them with the gun and then rob them.
But he chickened out as soon as he saw them and like i said, he bolted.
He ended up not sticking to his original plan because apparently he thought he was tougher than he actually was.
Does that about clear it up, pal?

And it doesn't change a thing. He's still going to jail.

Quote:

---

Quoting cbg

---

And it doesn't change a thing. He's still going to jail.

---

For a very, very long time. Which he deserves.