People v. Roberts

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Roberts

118 A.D.2d 668, 500 N.Y.S.2d 17, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 54530

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedMarch 10, 1986

StatusPublished

This text of 118 A.D.2d 668 (People v. Roberts) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Roberts, 118 A.D.2d 668, 500 N.Y.S.2d 17, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 54530 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

— Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Ramirez, J.), rendered October 22, 1982, convicting him of robbery in the second degree (two counts), and grand larceny in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Judgment modified, on the law, by reversing the conviction of robbery in the second degree under the third count of the renumbered indictment as submitted to the jury, vacating the sentence imposed thereon, and dismissing that count of the indictment. As so modified, judgment affirmed.

The crimes charged in the indictment occurred in two cars of a southbound "A” train at about 10:00 p.m. on May 25, 1981. The incidents in the last car of the train involved the robbery of one victim and the assault of another. These victims, who were the only witnesses to testify concerning the crimes committed against them, both identified the defendant as being present in the subway car in question. However, they also testified that the defendant was not involved in the robbery or the assault. One of the victims indicated that the defendant might have entered the subway car after the incidents.

In reviewing the testimony linking the defendant to the robbery charged in the third count of the renumbered indictment as submitted to the jury, we conclude that the People have failed to prove the defendant guilty of that crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the conviction on that charge must be reversed. We have considered the defendant’s other contentions and find them to be without merit. Bracken, J. P., Niehoff, Rubin and Lawrence, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

— Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Ramirez, J.), rendered October 22, 1982, convicting him of robbery in the second degree (two counts), and grand larceny in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Judgment modified, on the law, by reversing the conviction of robbery in the second degree under the third count of the renumbered indictment as submitted to the jury, vacating the sentence imposed thereon, and dismissing that count of the indictment. As so modified, judgment affirmed.

The crimes charged in the indictment occurred in two cars of a southbound "A” train at about 10:00 p.m. on May 25, 1981. The incidents in the last car of the train involved the robbery of one victim and the assault of another. These victims, who were the only witnesses to testify concerning the crimes committed against them, both identified the defendant as being present in the subway car in question. However, they also testified that the defendant was not involved in the robbery or the assault. One of the victims indicated that the defendant might have entered the subway car after the incidents.

In reviewing the testimony linking the defendant to the robbery charged in the third count of the renumbered indictment as submitted to the jury, we conclude that the People have failed to prove the defendant guilty of that crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the conviction on that charge must be reversed. We have considered the defendant’s other contentions and find them to be without merit. Bracken, J. P., Niehoff, Rubin and Lawrence, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

118 A.D.2d 668, 500 N.Y.S.2d 17, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 54530, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-roberts-nyappdiv-1986.