Complicit theft with threat of violence at night in dwelling, art. 312.2 Sr.
Evidence complaint intent.

Did defendant have intent to threaten resident with violence expressed by co-perpetrators? 's Court's finding that defendant had the requisite intent for proven threat of violence against victim is not adequately reasoned. Although the Court of Appeal has established that the accused and his co-perpetrators conceived a plan to commit theft in the dwelling and that they carried out this plan together on the understanding that the accused did not enter the dwelling with his co-perpetrators and waited for them in the car, the evidence used by the Court of Appeal does not show that in any form an agreement was made about (threatening with) violence in case of a possible confrontation with the occupant or that the accused was aware of the possibility that his co-perpetrators would threaten with violence in case of such a confrontation. Contrary to the Court's apparent judgment, the defendant's required intention to threaten with violence cannot be assumed solely on the grounds that the defendant knew that the house was occupied and that there was a fair chance that the occupant was at home and that the co-perpetrators were wearing face coverings in the house, notwithstanding the fact that the Court has not established that the defendant knew that the co-perpetrators were wearing face coverings.

Follows annulment and referral back.