Appellant struggled with the victim inside the victim’s house, and used force to take and escape with a watch. He was convicted of burglary and robbery. It was undisputed that the victim did not know that his watch had been taken until appellant fled. On appeal, appellant argued that there was insufficient evidence of robbery because the victim was not aware that property was being taken. The appellate court rejected the argument. A victim of a robbery may be unconscious or even dead when the property is taken, although here there was clearly evidence of a struggle. If property is taken from another by way of force, it is robbery whether or not the victim knows what is being done.