Last year, a man died in the waiting room of a local hospital. Noticing that he was unresponsive, three other men robbed him. The lawyer of one is now claiming that legally speaking, you cannot rob a corpse. Is he correct?
IANAL but I think that that may be true in only the most pedantic sense since in this case you are stealing from the corpse’s estate and heirs.
Probably going to depend on jurisdiction. Here he would probably be correct that one cannot “rob” the corpse, since robbery requires force or the threat of it, which can’t really be used on the corpse. However, the offender would probably be guilty of felony theft. Under Texas law theft is a state jail felony if “regardless of value, the property is stolen from a human corpse or grave.” If the stolen items would have amounted to more than a state jail felony amount, the prosecution would probably investigate the possibility of framing the indictment so the theft was from the heirs or the estate of the deceased. That would be unlikely, though - the theft would have to have been of property amounting to over $20,000.
Oh, I forgot to give the location!
It happened in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
I suppose it may be possible that the men did not rob the deceased, since presumably he had no legal claim to any possessions after death. But in that case, ownership of all of his possessions would have passed to his next of kin, legally designated heir, or at the very least the State of Pennsylvania.
In any case, the men were guilty of theft (or robbery, depending on the local laws). It may still need to be determined who they were stealing from, but they definitely took something that did not belong to them.
“Has a dead man any use for money? Is it possible for a dead man to have money? What world does a dead man belong to? 'Tother world. What world does money belong to? This world. How can money be a corpse’s? Can a corpse own it, want it, spend it, claim it, miss it? Don’t try to go confounding the rights and wrongs of things in that way.”
–Gaffer Hexam, Our Mutual Friend
The question, is who is the victim of the crime. Can a dead person be a victim? If not someone, as previously mentioned, was the victim.
This makes the most sense to me. You can’t threaten a corpse with violence. Well, you could but corpse won’t be intimidated.
“Oh, I’m scared. Watcha gonna do? Kill me? I’m shaking in my coffin!”
Could you apply laws against desecration of a corpse or graverobbing to this scenario? The latter would probably be a stretch, but so is the defense.
I’m not sure about a corpse, but I hear you can Rob Zombie.
I’m here all week, folks.
I always thought “robbing a corps” was looting. Wartime, disaster, or otherwise. Looting is a crime, with severe penalties during disaster or wartime.
I would think if you are charged with looting/theft during a riot or such it should be in the books somewhere.
All week or all weak? 
Looking at the definition of “robbery” in the Pennsylvania statutes, the defence doesn’t seem a stretch to me:
You can’t:
-
inflict serious bodily injury on a corpse, which is the gravamen of (i) and (iv); or,
-
threaten a corpse or put the corpse in fear of immediate serious bodily injury, the gravamen of (ii) and (iv)
I doubt that you can take property by force from the “person” of a corpse, as set out in (v), since a corpse has ceased to be a “person”.
The only one that I can’t comment on is (iii), since I don’t know if there was any other first or second degree felony involved.
But of course, I’m not a Philadelphia lawyer and this isn’t intended as legal advice; just my musings about a statute in a foreign country, about which I know nothing.
If that’s the quality of all my material, both. 
This defense is nuts. The property theft aside, there is the issue of abuse of a corpse, which is very much against the law in Pennsylvania. Moreover, the law is written in such a way that these gentlemen likely violated it.
true, but the question isn’t what offences they may have been charged with; as framed by the OP, they appear to have been charged with robbery, and the defence appears to be responding that charge isn’t available in these circumstances. That’s not nuts, based on the info we’ve been given.
It would be helpful if the OP could link a news report with a bit more detail?
Where did you dig that one up from?
Boom! Tish!
So am I, unfortunately…
Actually, if the actual charge was really “robbery,” then the defense is probably perfectly correct. As several other posters have stated, “robbery” is a specific kind of theft involving force or the threat of force against a person.
You can’t rob a corpse any more than you can burgle your mother-in-law.
That doesn’t mean that they didn’t commit some other kind of theft.
thanks!
so the fellow has been committed for robbery, theft, conspiracy and receiving stolen property. this is just the preliminary inquiry stage, not a trial. the defence raised the “no robbing a corpse” argument, but the judge held there was enough evidence to commit for trial.
reading between the lines, it may be that the judge thinks there was enough uncertainty as to the time of death that the robbery charge should go to trial, for a full fact-finding. I’d be interested to hear how it comes out at trial.
I would think that the theft charge would be a much easier one to prove, in light of the eye-witness testimony. dunno about the conspiracy and receiving charges.