A defendant who forcibly resists the victim while carrying away stolen property is guilty of robbery, even if the initial taking did not involve force or fear. The court held that the “immediate presence” requirement of a robbery charge is satisfied where the defendant, after stealing property belonging to the victim but not from the victim’s presence, is confronted by the victim as the defendant attempts to carry the property to a place of temporary safety, and uses forcible resistance to keep the property. One justice dissented and expressed the view that the majority opinion had effectively rewritten the robbery statute.