You are here: / ROBBERY

Tag Archive for: ROBBERY

,

Intent to Rob Sufficiently Proven by Circumstantial Evidence

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Rivera, determined there was sufficient evidence to support the attempted robbery conviction.  Defendant, when the business was closed, was dressed in dark clothes, wearing a mask, and carrying a handgun (BB gun) while pounding on the door of the business asking to enter.  The defendant never was allowed inside and ran when the police arrived.  The defendant argued there was no evidence he intended to commit robbery, as opposed to some other crime.  The Court of Appeals found the circumstantial evidence of an intent to commit robbery sufficient:

…[H]ere there was evidence that defendant, who was unknown to any of the employees present that morning, and had no apparent business at Wendy’s, nevertheless showed up masked and armed, carrying a backpack, seeking entry at 6:30 am through a locked rear door not used by the public, with an escape vehicle conveniently parked nearby. This fit the pattern common to an early morning robbery of a commercial establishment and was sufficient to support the inference that defendant intended to steal. People v Lamont, 2015 NY Slip Op 04165, CtApp 5-14-15

 

Assault and Robbery Committed by Separate Acts Involving the Same Victim–Consecutive Sentences Justified

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Stein, over a two-judge dissent, determined defendant was properly sentenced consecutively for robbery and assault.  The defendant first demanded that the victim turn over a necklace the victim was wearing. As the victim was complying, the defendant shot the victim. The court determined the two crimes were committed by separate acts, thereby justifying consecutive sentences. The dissent dealt with a different issue: i.e., whether CPL 430.10 prohibited Supreme Court from “reconfiguring” defendant's sentence after the case was remitted to it by the Appellate Division. After the Appellate Division determined two of the original sentences should have been imposed concurrently, the original 40-year sentence was reduced to 25. On remand, the sentencing court “reconfigured” the sentences to bring them up again to 40 years. CPL 430.10 prohibits the sentencing court from “modifying” a sentence after it has begun to be served. The “reconfigured” 40-year sentence was affirmed here by the Court of Appeals.  With respect to the consecutive sentences, the court explained:

Penal Law § 70.25 (2) mandates that concurrent sentences be imposed for “two or more offenses committed through a single act or omission, or through an act or omission which in itself constituted one of the offenses and also was a material element of the other.” We have held that, “[t]o determine whether consecutive sentences are permitted, a court must first look to the statutory definitions of the crimes at issue” to discern whether the actus reus elements overlap … . Even where the crimes have an actus reus element in common, “the People may yet establish the legality of consecutive sentencing by showing that the 'acts or omissions' committed by defendant were separate and distinct acts” … . Conversely, where “the actus reus is a single inseparable act that violates more than one statute, [a] single punishment must be imposed” … . The People bear the burden of establishing the legality of consecutive sentencing by “identifying the facts which support their view” that the crimes were committed by separate acts … .

Even if, as defendant contends, the statutory elements of his robbery and assault convictions overlap, the People have demonstrated in this case that the assault count and the robbery count at issue were committed by separate and distinct acts. People v Rodriguez, 2015 NY Slip Op 03877, CtApp 5-7-15

 

,

Robbery Petition Jurisdictionally Defective—No Nonhearsay Identification of Respondent As the Perpetrator

The Third Department determined the petition charging respondent with the equivalent of robbery in the second degree and petit larceny was jurisdictionally defective and must be dismissed, even though respondent admitted to the charged acts and did not seek dismissal of the petition.  Although the petition was supplemented by a video showing the person alleged to have committed the robbery and a letter identifying the respondent as that person, the letter was unsworn and unsigned:

A juvenile delinquency petition must contain “a plain and concise factual statement in each count which, without allegations of an evidentiary nature, asserts facts supporting every element of the crime charged and the respondent's commission thereof” (Family Ct Act § 311.1 [3] [h]…). “A juvenile delinquency petition that fails to contain non-hearsay allegations . . . establish[ing] . . . every element of each crime charged and the respondent's commission thereof is both legally insufficient and jurisdictionally defective” … . Finally, notwithstanding respondent's admission to the charged acts in Family Court and his failure to seek the dismissal of the petition, his assertion that the petition is facially insufficient can be considered for the first time on appeal as such claim regards a nonwaiveable jurisdictional defect … .

Although the statements in the victim's deposition constitute nonhearsay allegations establishing that property was forcibly stolen from him, the deposition does not establish that respondent was the individual who committed such acts. Nor do the video image and … letter identifying respondent as the individual wearing the blue jacket depicted therein cure the evidentiary deficiencies that render the petition invalid. In particular, the video image shows, among other things, a male wearing a blue jacket with a white-striped sleeve that matches the description provided in the victim's report; however, the image itself does nothing to connect respondent to the robbery. Moreover, as [the] letter to the investigating police officer identifying respondent as the person wearing a blue jacket with white stripes on the sleeve was unsigned and unsworn, it does not constitute a nonhearsay identification of respondent as the person who committed the charged acts, thereby rendering the petition facially invalid … . Matter of Jayquan Vv, 2014 NY Slip Op 09086, 3rd Dept 12-31-14


 

Attempted Murder and Attempted Robbery Convictions, Under the Facts, Required Concurrent, Not Consecutive, Sentences—Applicable Law Described in Some Depth

The Second Department determined defendant, who was convicted of attempted murder and attempted robbery, must be sentenced to concurrent, not consecutive, terms of imprisonment for those two offenses.  The defendant displayed a handgun and demanded money from the victim.  When the victim refused, the defendant struck and shot the victim:

Penal Law § 70.25(2) provides that concurrent sentences must be imposed “for two or more offenses committed through a single act or omission, or through an act or omission which in itself constituted one of the offenses and also was a material element of the other.” “Thus, sentences of imprisonment imposed for two or more offenses may not run consecutively (1) where a single act constitutes two offenses, or (2) where a single act constitutes one of the offenses and a material element of the other” … . However, “trial courts retain consecutive sentence discretion when separate offenses are committed through separate acts, though they are part of a single transaction” … .

Here, consecutive sentences may not be imposed because the act which constituted the offense of attempted murder in the second degree was a material element of the offense of attempted robbery in the first degree. A person is guilty of attempted murder in the second degree when, with intent to commit murder, he or she engages in conduct which tends to cause the death of another person (see Penal Law §§ 110.00, 125.25[1]). A person is guilty of attempted robbery in the first degree, under the Penal Law section charged here, when he or she attempts to forcibly steal property and is armed with a deadly weapon (see Penal Law § 160.15[2]). A person forcibly steals when he or she, in the course of committing a larceny, uses or threatens the immediate use of physical force to prevent or overcome resistance to the taking of the property or to compel the owner to deliver the property (see Penal Law § 160.00[1], [2]). Here, the actus reus of the attempted murder charge was the firing of three shots at Moore, and the actus reus of the attempted robbery charge was the use or threatened use of physical force to attempt to steal property while armed with a deadly weapon. The act which constitutes attempted murder in the second degree is subsumed within the element of using force. Thus, the act constituting attempted murder in the second degree can be a material element of attempted robbery in the first degree … .

In addition, the People have failed to establish that the acts constituting the attempted robbery in the first degree were separate and distinct from the acts constituting the attempted murder in the second degree … . Here, consecutive sentences could not be imposed because it is impossible to determine whether the firing of three gun shots at Moore, which formed the basis of the verdict of guilt on the attempted murder charge, was also the use of force which formed the basis of the jury’s verdict of guilt on the attempted robbery charge … . Therefore, the People have failed to establish that the acts constituting attempted robbery in the first degree were separate and distinct from those constituting attempted murder in the second degree. People v Grant, 2014 NY Slip Op 08859, 2nd Dept 12-17-14

 

,

Defense Counsel’s Failure to Request that the Jury Be Charged with an Affirmative Defense to Robbery First (Weapon Was Not Capable of Being Discharged) Constituted Ineffective Assistance

The Second Department determined defense counsel’s failure to request that the jury be charged with an affirmative defense constituted ineffective assistance:

…[T]he defendant was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel, under both the federal and state constitutions, as a result of his trial counsel’s failure to request that the trial court submit to the jury the affirmative defense to robbery in the first degree that the object that appeared to be a firearm was not a loaded weapon from which a shot, capable of producing death or other serious physical injury, could be discharged (see Penal Law § 160.15[4]…). “[T]he New York State constitutional standard for the effective assistance of counsel is ultimately concerned with the fairness of the process as a whole rather than its particular impact on the outcome of the case'” … . Thus, denial of a defendant’s fundamental right to counsel generally requires reversal of the conviction and a new trial… . People v Collins, 2014 NY Slip Op 05555, 2nd Dept 7-30-14

 

, ,

Confusing Jury Instruction Re: the Justification Defense Required Reversal of Murder Conviction in the Interest of Justice/Defendant’s Attorney Should Have Been Allowed to Testify at the Suppression Hearing—There Was a Question of Fact Whether the Attorney Called and Told the Police He Represented the Defendant and Defendant Should Not Be Questioned

The First Department reversed defendant's murder conviction in the interests of justice because of a confusing jury instruction.  The trial court did not make it clear to the jurors that the use of deadly force can be justified in defense of a robbery.   The First Department also noted that defendant's lawyer should have been allowed to testify at the suppression hearing because it was alleged the lawyer called the police station, informed officer Risorto he was representing defendant, and told officer Risorto the defendant should not be questioned:

In its main charge, the court instructed the jury that “[t]he only difference between the law of self-defense to repel a robbery as opposed to assault [is that] in repelling the robbery, the person has no duty to retreat.” This is an incorrect statement of the law because it ignores an additional critical difference between the two grounds for justification, namely, that deadly physical force may be permissible to defend against a robbery even if the alleged robber is using only physical force, and not deadly physical force (see People v Fuller, 74 AD2d at 879 [“a person is justified in using deadly physical force if he reasonably believed it necessary to use such force in order to resist his victim's imminent use of [mere] physical force against himself, in the course of a robbery attempt”]; People v Davis, 74 AD2d 607, 609 [2d Dept 1980] [jury should have been told that the defendant was justified in using deadly physical force if he reasonably believed it necessary to do so to resist the imminent use of physical force against him in the course of a robbery attempt]). The court's error was exacerbated when it repeated this erroneous statement in response to a jury note requesting further instructions on the defense of justification. * * *

The Court of Appeals has held that “an attorney enters a criminal matter and triggers the indelible right to counsel when the attorney . . . notifies the police that the suspect is represented by counsel” … . Once the police have reason to know that the suspect is represented by counsel in the case under investigation, the right to counsel cannot be waived unless the suspect does so in the presence of counsel … . An attorney does not need to enter the case in person, but can communicate his representation to the police by phone, “at which point the police are required to cease all questioning” … .

Here, the court erred in precluding defense counsel from testifying about the critical conversation with Risorto. The police testimony, along with defense counsel's affirmation, raised questions as to what defense counsel actually said to Risorto and, in particular, whether defense counsel told Risorto that he “represented” defendant in the case for which defendant was to be questioned. The court should not have made a factual finding that implicitly accepted Risorto's account, without giving defendant the opportunity to challenge that account. People v McTiernan, 2014 NY Slip Op 05363, 1st Dept 7-17-14

 

,

Proof of “Physical Injury” Was Legally Insufficient

The Second Department determined the “physical injury” element of robbery in the second degree had not been proven:

“Physical injury” is defined as “impairment of physical condition or substantial pain” (Penal Law § 10.00[9]). The subject complainant testified that he sustained an injury to his left ring finger after he was attacked from behind and fell to the ground. The complainant went to the hospital after the incident, where his bruised finger was bandaged and placed in a splint, but X rays revealed no broken bones and there was no evidence presented that he was prescribed pain medication. A “bruise” was still present four years after the incident, but the complainant only testified generally that he felt pain on his hand and arms immediately after the incident, and he did not testify that the injury limited or diminished his ability to use his finger for any length of time. Under these circumstances, there was insufficient evidence from which a jury could infer that the complainant suffered substantial pain or impairment of physical condition … . People v Boney, 2014 NY Slip Op 05197, 2nd Dept 7-9-14

 

Robbery First and Second Degree Convictions (Forcible Stealing) Supported Where Defendant Was Not Found to Be In Possession of Stolen Property and Used Force Only When Confronted By Security Personnel After the Alleged Taking

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Rivera, held that it is not necessary to recover stolen property in order to find that the defendant used physical force to prevent or overcome resistance to the … retention of stolen property (an element of robbery in the first and second degrees).  There was evidence, including video evidence, that the defendant removed the backing from earrings while inside a store. When confronted by security personnel, the defendant acted violently.  No stolen items were found.  The use of force at issue here was not involved in the taking of the property, but rather occurred  after the alleged taking when defendant was stopped by security.  The question was whether the defendant's use of force at that stage could be deemed to meet the “forcible stealing” element of robbery first and second degree.  Some appellate division decisions have held that defendant's use of force at that stage will meet the statutory requirement (force used to retain control of the property) if the defendant is found to be in possession of the stolen property. Here the Court of Appeals determined finding the defendant in possession of stolen property is not required:

Force used solely to effectuate a defendant's escape will not support a robbery conviction … . However, when a defendant is later found in possession of stolen property, the jury may infer that his or her use of force was to retain control of that property … .

Some Appellate Division Departments have adopted what amounts to an inverse proposition, that failure to recover stolen property from a defendant precludes a jury's finding of guilt for first or second degree robbery, notwithstanding the possible inferences which might reasonably follow from the trial evidence. Those Courts have held that, absent subsequent recovery of stolen property from the defendant, “it is impossible to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that [the] defendant's conscious objective in threatening to use physical force was to prevent or overcome resistance to the retention of the property” … . We reject this premise because it deprives the jury of its traditional role as factfinder and would have the unintended consequence of removing certain criminal conduct from the statutory ambit. * * *

Certainly, recovery from the defendant of the stolen property provides a strong basis for a jury's finding of criminal intent … . Yet, just as possession of the property is but one fact which supports the jury's reasonable inference of the defendant's “conscious objective,” failure to recover the property from the defendant is also a fact for the jury to consider in determining whether the People have established the requisite intent. Where sufficient facts and reasonable inferences support a finding of intent to forcibly steal, even where the stolen property is not recovered from the defendant, a jury should be permitted to make such a finding.  People v Gordon, 2014 NY Slip Op 04227, CtApp 6-12-14

 

Displaying What Appeared to Be a Firearm to Someone Other than the Robbery Victim During Flight from the Robbery Scene Supported Second Degree Robbery Conviction

After noting that merely telling the cashier he had a gun was not enough to meet the criteria for displaying a firearm in the course of a robbery, the Third Department determined that defendant’s “displaying” of what “appeared to be” a firearm to someone other than the victim of the robbery, as he was fleeing from the store he robbed, was sufficient to support his conviction for robbery in the second degree:

To prove the display element, “[t]he People must show that the defendant consciously displayed something that could reasonably be perceived as a firearm, with the intent of forcibly taking property, and that the victim actually perceived the display” … . While the object displayed need not in fact be a firearm …, “it must appear to the victim by sight, touch or sound that he [or she] is threatened by a firearm” …. The display requirement “cannot be read so broadly as to include mere statements that a robber is armed with a gun” … . While such statements can give meaning to a robber’s otherwise ambiguous actions, such as “a hand consciously concealed in clothing” …, “words alone will not constitute a display of what appears to be a firearm” … .

Here, the cashier testified that defendant said the word “gun” when demanding that she turn over the money, but she did not testify to witnessing any action on his part that would constitute a display of a firearm, nor did she testify that she believed he possessed a firearm. Thus, her testimony is insufficient to establish that defendant displayed a firearm during the robbery. But the inquiry does not end there. Although several cases address the issue as whether the victim perceived the gun …, the statute does not mention to whom the apparent weapon must be displayed (see Penal Law § 160.10 [2] [b]; …). The language of the statute — namely, that the display can occur in the course of “immediate flight” from the robbery and not just during the commission thereof — implies that the display may be directed at an individual other than the victim of the robbery, with the implication that the apparent weapon must be displayed for the purpose of allowing the defendant to deter someone from attempting to either recover possession of the stolen property or impede the defendant’s escape (Penal Law § 160.10 [2] [b]). People v Colon, 2014 NY Slip Op 02626, 3rd Dept 4-17-14

 

,

Evidence of a Prior Crime Not Admissible to Prove Intent and Not Admissible As Part of a Common Scheme or Plan/Conviction Reversed

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Acosta, over a dissent, determined the admission of evidence of an uncharged crime to demonstrate defendant’s intent required reversal because (1) the proof was not ambiguous about defendant’s intent, and (2) the prior crime was not so similar to the charged crime that it proved the existence of a common scheme or plan.  Defendant was charged with theft of a ring from a man named Cushman.  Extensive proof that defendant had previously stolen jewelry from another person was allowed:

Where intent is at issue but cannot be readily inferred from the commission of the act itself, evidence of prior criminal acts may be used to establish it … . Where, however, proof of the act demonstrates that the defendant acted with the requisite state of mind, Molineux evidence should not be admitted … . Here, proof of defendant’s actions is sufficient to demonstrate that he acted with the requisite intent. Spraying someone in the face with mace, grabbing the person’s ring and running can only indicate an intent to steal the ring. If the jury believed Cushman’s testimony, then it would have to infer that defendant intended to steal the ring from him.   * * *

Nor was [the prior crime evidence] admissible under the common plan or scheme exception, which requires that “there exist[] a single inseparable plan encompassing both the charged and the uncharged crimes” … . “There must be such a concurrence of common features that the various acts are naturally to be explained as caused by a general plan of which they are the individual manifestations'” …. Indeed, the Court of Appeals noted that “courts have been particularly cautious in permitting proof of uncharged criminal acts to establish a common scheme or plan” … . Evidence that is merely indicative of a modus operandi is not sufficient. “[A] modus operandi alone is not a common scheme; it is only a repetitive pattern” … . What is generally required is evidence of “uncharged crimes committed in order to effect the primary crime for which the accused has been indicted” … . People v DeGerolamo, 2014 NY Slip Op 02698, 1st Dept 4-17-14

 

Categories

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

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy