State v. Holley
Rhode Island Supreme Court
604 A.2d 772 (1992)

- Written by Carolyn Strutton, JD
Facts
Melkon Varadian owned a grocery store with his wife. One day Zachary Spratt and Julio Holley (defendant) entered the store and began meandering among the aisles. Spratt approached the meat counter and slowly ordered various items from Varadian while Holley paced back and forth. Varadian became suspicious about their behavior and kept a close watch on the men, seeing Spratt place two cans of tuna fish in his pocket. Eventually Varadian rang up their purchases. Spratt complained about the prices and began removing items from the grocery bag. Varadian told him to take the tuna fish cans out of his pocket and get out of the store. Spratt then nodded at Holley, and Holley approached Varadian and pushed a gun against Varadian’s stomach. Varadian attempted to punch Holley, but Holley hit him, dragged him across the store and onto the floor, and began beating him in the face with the gun. Spratt meanwhile attempted to get break into the cash register. Varadian broke free and ran toward the phone, and Spratt and Holley fled, without any cash or items except the two cans of tuna in Spratt’s pocket. Holley was convicted of robbery and conspiracy and sentenced to 45 years in prison. Holley appealed on the grounds that the tuna fish was taken prior to the occurrence of any violence and therefore was not sufficient to support a robbery charge.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Kelleher, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.