State v. Anderson
In State v. Anderson, 212 Conn. 31, 561 A.2d 897 (1989), the defendant had used a knife to rob the victim, but moments after he took the money, he returned it to her.
On appeal, the defendant claimed that he did not have the intent necessary to deprive the victim of her money because he returned it. Id., at 45.
"In discussing the intent to deprive another of property, an element required for a conviction of robbery in the first degree, [our Supreme Court has] stated that the accused must intend both to take the property of another and to retain it. . . . The requisite intent for retention is permanency. . . . See General Statutes 53a-118 (a) (3) (deprive means withhold [property] or cause it to be withheld from [the victim] permanently . . .). Intent, however, can be inferred both from the defendant's conduct and his statements at the time of the crime . . . and whether such an inference should be drawn is properly a question for the jury to decide. . . . To be convicted of robbery in the first degree, therefore, it is not necessary for the jury to find that the defendant actually kept the property in question, but rather, that at the moment he took the property he intended to retain it permanently. . . . Moreover, a postoffense change of heart is not a defense to a crime." State v. Anderson, supra, 212 Conn. at 45-46 .