People v. Knight

• Decision Date: 19 April 1993
• Citation: 597 N.Y.S.2d 94,192 A.D.2d 676
• Parties: The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Stacey KNIGHT, Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 94

597 N.Y.S.2d 94

192 A.D.2d 676

The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Stacey KNIGHT, Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division Second Department.

April 19, 1993.

Philip L. Weinstein, New York City (William B. Carney, of counsel), for appellant.

Charles J. Hynes, Dist. Atty., Brooklyn (Roseann B. MacKechnie, Camille O'Hara Gillespie and Barbara Thomashower, of counsel), for respondent.

Before THOMPSON, J.P., and ROSENBLATT, MILLER and PIZZUTO, JJ.

MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Lipp, J.), rendered September 18, 1990, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress identification testimony.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People, we find that it was legally sufficient to prove the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt (see, People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620, 621, 467 N.Y.S.2d 349, 454 N.E.2d 932). In order to hold an accessory liable for acts committed by his principal, the prosecution must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the accessory possessed the requisite mental culpability for the crime charged (see, Penal Law § 20.00; People v. Allah, 71 N.Y.2d 830, 527 N.Y.S.2d 731, 522 N.E.2d 1029; People v. Armistead, 178 A.D.2d 607, 577 N.Y.S.2d 667). Here, the evidence established that the defendant was aware that his accomplice was armed (see, People v. Whatley, 69 N.Y.2d 784, 513 N.Y.S.2d 110, 505 N.E.2d 620; People v. Livingston, 171 A.D.2d 759, 760, 567 N.Y.S.2d 313), and that the defendant actively participated in the robbery. The complainant testified that as a group of five males were walking towards him, two of them, the defendant and his accomplice, approached the complainant. The defendant's accomplice held a gun to the complainant's head and took money and jewelry from him. When his accomplice stepped aside, the defendant approached the complainant and stated "A pussy like you supposed to get robbed." He then snatched two chains from the complainant's neck. After the accomplice fired several shots in the air, both the defendant and his accomplice fled (see, People v. Armistead 78 A.D.2d 607, 577 N.Y.S.2d 667, supra ). Moreover, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see,...