Summary
upholding verdict finding display of a dangerous weapon where the victim testified she thought the defendant had "probably a gun or a knife, I'm not really sure"
Summary of this case from Russell v. RacetteOpinion
July 29, 1996
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Koch, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the evidence was legally sufficient to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that he displayed what appeared to be a gun during the robbery. The element of display is satisfied when the evidence establishes that the defendant consciously displayed something that could reasonably be perceived as a firearm, with the intent of taking property, and the victim actually perceived the display (People v. Lopez, 73 N.Y.2d 214, 220; People v. Baskerville, 60 N.Y.2d 374, 381). Thus, even a hand consciously concealed in clothing may suffice, if under all the circumstances the defendant's conduct could reasonably lead the victim to believe that a gun is being used during the robbery (see, People v Lopez, supra; People v. Knowles, 79 A.D.2d 116).
At bar, the complainant testified that during the robbery the defendant put his hand in the pocket of his jacket and pressed a hard object to her side, and that she thought the object was "probably a gun or a knife, I'm not really sure". Clearly, part of the complainant's perception of the object was that it was a gun, and that portion of her perception is legally sufficient to support a finding that the defendant displayed what appeared to be a firearm (see, People v. Pierre, 220 A.D.2d 538).
The defendant's remaining contention does not require reversal. Rosenblatt, J.P., Ritter, Pizzuto and Hart, JJ., concur.