The Eleventh Circuit has determined that a Massachusetts robbery conviction is a theft related aggravated felony. The offense of armed robbery under entails a number of elements. The prosecution must prove that (1) the defendant was armed with a dangerous weapon (though it need not be used); (2) the defendant either applied actual force or violence to the body of the person identified in the indictment, or by words or gestures put him in fear (i.e., the defendant committed an assault on that person); and (3) the defendant took the money or the property of another with intent to steal it.
“These elements, under the categorical approach, match the generic definition of theft. Generic theft requires taking the property of another without consent and with intent to steal. The third element of armed robbery under § 17— the taking of property with the intent to steal—matches two of the requirements of a generic theft offense—i.e., the taking of property with the criminal intent to deprive the victim of the rights and benefits of ownership. And the second element of armed robbery under § 17—the taking of property by the use of force or by putting the victim in fear—matches the generic theft requirement that the taking be without the consent of the victim. Massachusetts law teaches that ‘[t]he essence of robbery is the exertion of force, actual or constructive, against another in order to take personal property . . . which is so within his reach . . . that he could, if not overcome by violence or prevented by fear, retain his possession of it. This understanding satisfies the ‘without consent’ requirement of generic theft.”
The full text of Kemokai v. Attorney General can be found here:
https://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/202112743.pdf