(concurring in part, dissenting in part).
I concur in part and dissent in part from the majority opinion. I would affirm Stani-fer’s conviction in all respects, holding that Stanifer’s conviction of robbery and fifth-degree assault should stand because the force required for simple robbery does not necessarily constitute an assault.
State v. Coleman, 373 N.W.2d 777, 780-81 (Minn.1985), directs a trial court to look at the statutory elements of the relevant offenses rather than at the facts of a particular case to determine whether an offense is a lesser-included offense. Robbery requires that the person “takes personal property from the person or in the presence of another and uses or threatens the imminent use of force against any person to overcome his resistance or powers of resistance to, or to compel acquiescence in, the taking or carrying away of the property.” See Minn.Stat. § 609.24 (1984). Fifth-degree assault requires that one commit “an act with intent to cause fear in another of immediate bodily harm or death;” or “intentionally inflicts or attempts to inflict bodily harm upon another.” Minn.Stat. § 609.224 (1984).
The force required in robbery must only be enough to acquire another’s property from their person or presence, while the force required in the assault must intend or cause another to fear immediately bodily harm. I agree with the trial court which noted in its memorandum:
The court notes that a robbery could be effectuated without either inflicting or attempting to inflict bodily harm, and without intending to cause fear in another of bodily harm. The Advisory Committee comment to Minnesota Statute § 609.24, the Simple Robbery Statute, gives as an explanation of “force” the pushing of the victim against the wall and the taking of his wallet. In such a case, force is used to overcome the victim’s resistance to the taking of the property, but no bodily harm is necessarily intended, inflicted, or attempted to be inflicted. Another illustration would be taking a purse in a tug-of-war with the victim.
*221This case is thus similar to State v. DeFoe, 280 N.W.2d 38 (Minn.1979), where the distinction was less clear. In DeFoe, the Minnesota Supreme Court held that:
Aggravated robbery requires proof of a robbery plus proof that the defendant was armed or that he inflicted “bodily harm.” Conviction for aggravated assault under Minn.St. 609.225, subd. 1, requires proof of infliction of “great bodily harm” upon another person. In other words, neither crime is necessarily included in the other, and defendant’s reliance on § 609.04 — which bars convicting a defendant of both a greater and an included offense — is also unjustified.
Id. at 41.
This court should have examined the elements of the offenses, rather than the facts here, and affirmed the trial court, upholding Stanifer’s conviction for the offense of fifth-degree assault.