Banging On Door of Closed Restaurant While Wearing a Mask and Carrying a BB Gun Was Sufficient to Support Conviction for Attempted Robbery
Over a two-justice dissent, the Fourth Department affirmed defendant’s conviction for attempted robbery. Defendant, wearing a mask and armed with a BB gun, banged on the back door of a restaurant, which was closed. One of the restaurant employees called 911. On appeal the defendant argued that the proof was not sufficient to demonstrate an intent to forcibly steal property and therefore could not support an attempted robbery conviction:
Although defendant’s mere entry into a store with a gun does not “unequivocally establish that he intended to commit a robbery” …, the evidence also established that none of the Wendy’s employees knew defendant; the restaurant was not open to the public when defendant sought entry; defendant and his accomplice were armed with BB guns that appeared to be firearms; defendant and his accomplice wore masks and gloves; and defendant had a backpack into which stolen property could be put.
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People, as we must …, we conclude that there is a “ ‘valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences [that] could lead a rational person’ ” to the conclusion reached by the trial court, i.e., that defendant was trying to gain entry into the restaurant with the intent to steal property forcibly from someone inside … . Furthermore, viewing the evidence in light of the elements of the crime in this nonjury trial …, we conclude that the verdict is not against the weight of the evidence… . People v Lamont, 1090, 4th Dept 1-3-14