From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Raphael

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 23, 1987
134 A.D.2d 535 (N.Y. App. Div. 1987)

Opinion

November 23, 1987

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Broomer, J.).


Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The evidence adduced at the trial was legally sufficient to permit a rational trier of fact to find that the defendant acted in concert with his codefendant and possessed the requisite intent to commit a robbery (see, People v. Malizia, 62 N.Y.2d 755, cert denied 469 U.S. 932; People v. Barnes, 50 N.Y.2d 375). The mere fact that the evidence is subject to an interpretation different from that found by the jury does not mean the People failed to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt (see, People v. Gerard, 50 N.Y.2d 392, rearg denied 51 N.Y.2d 770).

The defendant and his codefendant followed the victims from a check-cashing establishment through the streets of Brooklyn until they reached an opportune location to commit a robbery. The defendant drew a gun and told the victims not to move. The fact that the defendant chased after the victim who fled and was not present when his codefendant completed the robbery by taking money from the other victim, did not relieve him of his accessorial liability (see, Penal Law § 20.00).

The defendant's contention that he did not share in his codefendant's intent to commit a robbery, but intended only to menace or assault the victim who fled, while a possible interpretation, was apparently discredited by the jury. We find no reason to disturb its verdict.

We also find that the court properly denied the defendant's request for a circumstantial evidence charge. This charge is required only where proof of guilt depends entirely upon circumstantial evidence (People v. Ruiz, 52 N.Y.2d 929). The testimony of the robbery victim provided direct evidence that the defendant participated in the crime. Thus, the charge was unnecessary.

We find the court's supplemental charge relating to acting in concert was proper. It was responsive to the jury's question and the charge as a whole was not prejudicial to the defendant (see, People v. Malloy, 55 N.Y.2d 296, cert denied 459 U.S. 847). Niehoff, J.P., Eiber, Kunzeman and Harwood, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Raphael

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 23, 1987
134 A.D.2d 535 (N.Y. App. Div. 1987)
Case details for

People v. Raphael

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. GERALD RAPHAEL…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Nov 23, 1987

Citations

134 A.D.2d 535 (N.Y. App. Div. 1987)

Citing Cases

People v. Taxiarhopoulos

While the fact that the defendant shared his companion's intent to steal the cab must be inferred from the…

People v. Singh

bedroom, were, in fact, using forcible compulsion, and that “he knowingly participated and continued to…