Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
Helsingin HO 28.02.1985 112 AI generated

Court rules theft involving excessive force and probable injury constitutes robbery under Finnish law.

Case Number Helsingin HO 28.02.1985 112
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Finland (FI)
Decision Date
Outcome Allowed / Granted
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The court upheld the conviction for robbery against defendant A, who forcibly took a bag from victim B. Although the act began as theft, the prosecution argued that A used excessive violence, causing B to fall and suffer a severe head injury. The court determined that the violence used was disproportionate to securing the bag and that the likelihood of injury was obvious, thereby transforming the theft into robbery under the relevant statute.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Rikoslain 31 luvun 1 §:n mukaan; when theft is accompanied by violence that is excessive relative to the objective of taking the property and creates a high probability of injury to the victim, the offense is legally characterized as robbery rather than simple theft.

Keywords

AI generated
theft to robbery transformation excessive violence in theft probable injury standard Finnish robbery statute disproportionate force application

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Rikoslain 31 luvun 1 §
Riuhtaisu ja sillä aiheutettu loukkaantuminen ovat rikoslain 31 luvun 1 §:n tarkoittamaa väkivaltaista pitelemistä.

Cited Case Law

AI generated
KKO:1972-II-90
AI generated
kko-precedent_2009_5
Supreme Court upholds robbery conviction where minor violence against an elderly victim was collectively deemed serious due to two perpetrators.
ECLI:FI:KKO:2024:4
Supreme Court allows robbery attempt and grievous assault charges for violent debt collection. The court upheld the lower court's sentencing for repeated assaults. The violence exceeded robbery limits, justifying the charges. The court rejected the appeal against the sentence length. The decision confirms the legal classification of the acts. The outcome supports the prosecution's request for specific charges. The court found the violence disproportionate to robbery. The sentence was deemed appropriate under the law. The decision clarifies the boundary between robbery and assault. The court applied the relevant criminal law provisions correctly.
kko-other_2010_1129
Attempted murder conviction upheld where victim survived surgery after being attacked with a steel weapon.
kko-precedent_2017_57
Court holds assault and coercion are separate crimes from incitement to robbery due to different protected legal interests.
kko-precedent_1996_76
Supreme Court rules robbery charge upheld for death caused during theft, rejecting murder charge due to lack of intent.

Need to analyze how this precedent applies to your matter?

Cross-reference this judgment against statutes, commentaries, and subsequent citing case law inside Legislator AI.

Open in Legislator →

Full text

A oli erään kerrostalon pimeässä portaassa anastanut 74- vuotiaan ja toisen silmänsä osalta sokean B:n kyynärtaipeessa olleen käsilaukun riuhtaisemalla sen niin, että B oli kaatunut ja saanut vertavuotavan haavan päähänsä. A oli ottaessaan käsilaukun B:ltä käyttänyt enemmän väkivaltaa kuin mitä laukun haltuun saamiseksi olisi ollut tarpeellista. A:n on täytynyt ymmärtää, että laukun kyynärtaipeesta riuhtaisusta sanotuissa olosuhteissa varsin todennäköisesti seuraa B:n kaatuminen ja loukkaantuminen. Riuhtaisu ja sillä aiheutettu loukkaantuminen ovat rikoslain 31 luvun 1 §:n tarkoittamaa väkivaltaista pitelemistä.

Anastaminen on siten katsottu ryöstöksi.

Honkasalo: Suomen rikosoikeus, Erityinen osa I 2

Varallisuusrikokset (1964) s. 108

Vrt. KKO:1972-II-90

Läsnä: Liukko, Lahti ja Martimo Esittelijä: Mäkihannu

Lainvoimainen