You are here: / / FAILURE TO GIVE SUPPLEMENTAL INSTRUCTIONS TO CLARIFY THE SHARED INTENT...

FAILURE TO GIVE SUPPLEMENTAL INSTRUCTIONS TO CLARIFY THE SHARED INTENT REQUIREMENTS FOR ACCOMPLICE LIABILITY DEPRIVED DEFEFNDANTS OF A FAIR TRIAL.

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Renwick, over a full-fledged dissenting opinion, determined (in the interest of justice) the two defendants were deprived of a fair trial by the failure of the trial judge give supplemental instructions to clarify the requirements for robbery convictions under an accomplice (shared intent) theory. One of the two defendants stole three rings from a small shop. The other struck the shopkeeper after she confronted them. The jury made repeated requests for clarification of the intent criteria. In response to each request the trial court read the elements of the robbery charges and accomplice liability:

With regard to Telesford, the issue of intent was critical in one respect. The evidence adduced at trial undeniably established that Telesford assaulted the complainant. To sustain a conviction for robbery in the second degree based upon accessorial liability, however, the evidence, when viewed in a light most favorable to the prosecution, must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Telesford acted with the mental culpability necessary to commit the robbery and that, in furtherance thereof, he solicited, requested, commanded, importuned or intentionally aided the principal to commit such crime … . Thus, in this case, an inference that Telesford helped Celestine commit the robbery, based on his role as an accomplice, would have been insufficient to prove the requisite intent to steal, in the absence of a specific finding that Telesford intended to do more than commit an assault … .

With regard to Celestine, the issue of intent was critical in a different respect. Undeniably, the evidence established beyond a reasonable doubt that Celestine took the three rings. Such conduct, however, by itself, constituted no more than a larceny, absent proof that either defendant used force to take or retain the stolen items. Although, as indicated, Telesford did use force to attack the victim, in order to convict either defendant of robbery, the jury needed to find that the violent attack on the victim, by Telesford, was not a mere response to insults and being spat upon by the victim, but that it was rather part and parcel to the taking or retaining of the stolen items. In other words, the jury had to find that Celestine intended to use force to retain the ring(s), either by using his own force or taking advantage of Telesford use of force … . People v Telesford, 2017 NY Slip Op 01836, 1st Dept 3-15-17

 

CRIMINAL LAW (FAILURE TO GIVE SUPPLEMENTAL INSTRUCTIONS TO CLARIFY THE SHARED INTENT REQUIREMENTS FOR ACCOMPLICE LIABILITY DEPRIVED DEFEFNDANTS OF A FAIR TRIAL)/JURY INSTRUCTIONS (CRIMINAL LAW, FAILURE TO GIVE SUPPLEMENTAL INSTRUCTIONS TO CLARIFY THE SHARED INTENT REQUIREMENTS FOR ACCOMPLICE LIABILITY DEPRIVED DEFEFNDANTS OF A FAIR TRIAL)/ACCOMPLICE LIABILITY (FAILURE TO GIVE SUPPLEMENTAL INSTRUCTIONS TO CLARIFY THE SHARED INTENT REQUIREMENTS FOR ACCOMPLICE LIABILITY DEPRIVED DEFEFNDANTS OF A FAIR TRIAL)/SHARED INTENT (CRIMINAL LAW, FAILURE TO GIVE SUPPLEMENTAL INSTRUCTIONS TO CLARIFY THE SHARED INTENT REQUIREMENTS FOR ACCOMPLICE LIABILITY DEPRIVED DEFEFNDANTS OF A FAIR TRIAL)

You might also like
CROSS-EXAMINATION OF A POLICE OFFICER ABOUT A CIVIL LAWSUIT SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED; CONVICTION REVERSED (FIRST DEPT).
BANK’S POSSESSION OF THE NOTES CONSOLIDATED BY A CONSOLIDATION, EXTENSION AND MODIFICATION AGREEMENT (CEMA) CONFERRED STANDING TO BRING THE FORECLOSURE ACTION, POSSESSION OF THE ORIGINAL NOTES WAS NOT REQUIRED (FIRST DEPT).
CHARTER SCHOOLS IN NYC ARE REQUIRED TO PROVIDE RANDOM COVID-19 TESTS TO CITY-RESIDENT CHILDREN (FIRST DEPT).
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER EMERGENCY DOCTRINE APPLIED TO REAR-END COLLISION.
THE PEOPLE DID NOT PROVE AT THE SUPPRESSION HEARING THAT THE SEARCH OF DEFENDANT’S PERSON AFTER A STREET STOP WAS SUPPORTED BY PROBABLE CAUSE (FIRST DEPT).
THE INDUSTRIAL CODE REQUIRED A GUARD ON THE SAW WHICH INJURED PLAINTIFF; DEFENDANT WAS NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT BASED ON THE ALLEGATION THERE WAS NO PLACE TO INSTALL A GUARD ON THE SAW.
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER RESIDENT EXERCISED INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CASE, MAKING THE RESIDENT AND HOSPITAL POTENTIALLY LIABLE (FIRST DEPT).
INSURER’S ATTORNEY MUST BE DEPOSED TO DETERMINE HIS ROLE IN THE INVESTIGATION OF A FIRE ON PLAINTIFFS’ PROPERTY AND THE DENIAL OF COVERAGE, THE INFORMATION PROVIDED BY THE DEPOSITION WILL DETERMINE WHETHER THE ATTORNEY’S FILES ARE DISCOVERABLE BY THE PLAINTIFFS (FIRST DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

Copyright © 2023 New York Appellate Digest, LLC
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

CLAIM ALLEGING NEGLIGENT PLACEMENT OF A GUARDRAIL PROPERLY DISMISSED, STATE... WITNESS’S DISAVOWED IDENTIFICATION OF ANOTHER AS THE PERPETRATOR COULD...