need not prove that the property taken was owned by the victim but only that the accused was not the owner, and the victim had a greater right to the item than the accused. Id. In State v. Cittadino, 628 So.2d 251, 255 (La.App. 5 Cir.1993), this Court stated the following: The money taken was not taken from the victim’s person but rather it was taken from a cash register within the victim’s immediate control. The victim was the cashier on duty at the time of the alleged robbery. In a robbery case, it is the felonious taking that is the issue more than the perfect title of the alleged owner. Therefore, it is the victim’s greater possessory interest in the property stolen vis-a-vis the accused that is key in proving a robbery. (citing State v. Perry, 612 So.2d 986 (La.App. 2d Cir.1993) (<HOLDING>). |17In the present case, defendant was charged
holding that a plaintiff must comply with the notice of claim requirements in order to maintain an action against a government employee even if the plaintiff claims that the employee acted with fraud or malice holding that the employers failure to interact with the employee does not preclude the employee from losing on summary judgment because the employee must still prove that a reasonable accommodation could have been made holding that the relevant question is whether after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt holding that a verdict must be sustained against a sufficiency of the evidence challenge if any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the charged crime beyond a reasonable doubt holding that a rational juror could conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the crime of armed robbery against the supervisor who stood behind the counter with another employee and instructed that employee to comply with the defendants demand to turn over money from cash register