People v. Lamont
| Decision Date | 14 May 2015 |
| Citation | 33 N.E.3d 1275,12 N.Y.S.3d 6,25 N.Y.3d 315,2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 04165 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Jafari LAMONT, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Timothy P. Donaher, Public Defender, Rochester (Janet C. Somes of counsel), for appellant.
Sandra Doorley, District Attorney, Rochester (Leah Mervine and Erin Tubbs of counsel), for respondent.
Defendant Jafari Lamont challenges his conviction for two counts of attempted robbery in the second degree on the basis that the evidence was legally insufficient to establish he had the specific intent to steal. We conclude that defendant's conduct and the surrounding circumstances provided legally sufficient evidence of the requisite intent to support defendant's conviction.
According to the undisputed evidence at defendant's nonjury trial, at approximately 6:30 a.m. , before the morning business hours, defendant and an accomplice appeared armed and masked at the rear door of a Wendy's fast-food establishment. The two lone employees who were preparing to open heard loud knocking, and one of them checked the security camera and saw defendant and his accomplice outside the back, knocking on the door. The employee did not let the two men in, but instead called his supervisor and 911.
A police officer responded in a marked patrol car, and as he pulled up with his car lights shining on the back of the Wendy's he saw two men hiding behind some stacked up crates. Upon seeing the car lights, defendant and his accomplice ran in different directions, with defendant running towards the officer.
The officer saw defendant dressed in dark blue clothing, wearing a black knit hat, black gloves and a black mask over his face, and observed defendant carrying what appeared to be a black handgun. When the officer drew his weapon, defendant ran towards the nearby highway. The officer followed in his car and later tracked defendant on foot, at which point a K–9 officer responded to the first officer's call for assistance. During the chase, the officers recovered a black knit hat and a black glove. When the officers eventually caught up with defendant they found him hiding between two buildings, and in possession of a backpack which contained a pair of green, black and yellow gloves.
A subsequent search in the vicinity of the Wendy's led police to discover two BB guns.* The police found one about 10 feet from the establishment's rear door, near where the first officer initially spotted defendant. The police recovered the other from defendant's car, which the police found parked in a lot about 50 yards away from the Wendy's.
The People charged defendant with two counts of attempted robbery in the second degree (Penal Law §§ 110.00, 160.10[1], [2][b] ) and one count of attempted burglary in the second degree (Penal Law §§ 110.00, 140.25[1] [d] ). At trial, defendant stipulated to the introduction into evidence of footage from the security camera, which showed the two masked men looking in and knocking on the Wendy's rear door, while holding what appeared to be guns. He further stipulated that he was one of the masked men and that he was the person who ran towards the officer and who was later apprehended by the police.
In addition to the police testimony, the People relied on statements from the two coworkers and the supervisor who were on the morning shift the day of the incident. These individuals testified that they did not recognize defendant's name, and that the Wendy's was closed when defendant attempted to enter. They also confirmed what was obvious from the security footage, that defendant and his accomplice were carrying what appeared to be firearms, and wore masks and gloves.
County Court convicted defendant of both the attempted robbery counts and acquitted him of attempted burglary. A majority of the Appellate Division affirmed, concluding, as relevant to this appeal, that there was legally sufficient evidence to support defendant's conviction on the robbery counts (People v. Lamont, 113 A.D.3d 1069, 977 N.Y.S.2d 540 [4th Dept.2014] ). Two Justices dissented, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant had the specific intent to steal, as required for attempted robbery. A Justice of the Appellate Division granted defendant leave to appeal (22 N.Y.3d 1160, 984 N.Y.S.2d 644, 7 N.E.3d 1132 [2014] ). We now affirm.
On appeal to us, the entirety of defendant's challenge to his attempted robbery conviction is his allegation that the evidence was legally insufficient to establish the requisite intent to steal. He contends that while the evidence may establish what appears to be some type of attempted criminal behavior, it does not support a valid inference that defendant intended to steal. The People respond that defendant's intent to commit robbery is established by defendant's conduct and the surrounding circumstances.
The law is well-established that “[a] verdict is legally sufficient if there is any valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences that could lead a rational person to conclude that every element of the charged crime has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt” (People v. Delamota, 18 N.Y.3d 107, 113, 936 N.Y.S.2d 614, 960 N.E.2d 383 [2011] ). Where the defendant has been convicted, “[t]he proof must be viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution,” recognizing that “the People are entitled to all reasonable evidentiary inferences” (Delamota, 18 N.Y.3d at 113, 936 N.Y.S.2d 614, 960 N.E.2d 383 ). As this Court has recognized in the past, “[t]he element of intent is rarely proved ‘by an explicit expression of culpability by the perpetrator’; and ‘[c]ompeting inferences to be drawn [regarding the defendant's intent], if not unreasonable, are within the exclusive domain of the finders of fact, not to be disturbed’ by us” (People v. Bueno, 18 N.Y.3d 160, 169, 936 N.Y.S.2d 636, 960 N.E.2d 405 [2011] [citation omitted], citing People v. Barnes, 50 N.Y.2d 375, 381, 429 N.Y.S.2d 178, 406 N.E.2d 1071 [1980] ).
On the record before us, we agree that the evidence was sufficient for a rational finder of fact to find defendant guilty of two counts of attempted second-degree robbery. “A person is guilty of an attempt to commit a crime when, with [the] intent to commit a crime, [the person] engages in conduct which tends to effect the commission of such crime” (Penal Law § 110.00 ). “Essentially then, an attempt is an act done with an intent to commit some other crime” (People v. Bracey, 41 N.Y.2d 296, 299, 392 N.Y.S.2d 412, 360 N.E.2d 1094 [1977], citing People v. Moran, 123 N.Y. 254, 257, 25 N.E. 412 [1890] ). Here, the attempted crime is second-degree robbery, which is established when a person “forcibly steals property” and “is aided by another person actually present” or “[d]isplays what appears to be a ... firearm” (Penal Law § 160.10[1], [2][b] ). A person “forcibly steals” when the person “uses or threatens the immediate use of physical force upon another person for the purpose of ... [c]ompelling the owner of such property or another person to deliver up the property” (Penal Law § 160.00[2] ). The requisite mental state for robbery is the “intent to permanently deprive the owner of that property” (People v. Miller, 87 N.Y.2d 211, 217, 638 N.Y.S.2d 577, 661 N.E.2d 1358 [1995] ). Thus, the People had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant intended to forcibly steal property from an employee at the Wendy's by threat or use of physical force.
Even absent direct evidence of intent, a conviction may be sustained where sufficient evidence exists to infer the requisite intent from the defendant's conduct and the surrounding circumstances (People v. Rodriguez, 17 N.Y.3d 486, 489, 933 N.Y.S.2d 631, 957 N.E.2d 1133 [2011], citing Bracey, 41 N.Y.2d at 301, 392 N.Y.S.2d 412, 360 N.E.2d 1094 ). As a practical matter, circumstantial evidence of intent is often essential to prosecution for an attempted crime because, as this Court is acutely aware, such evidence “ ‘may be the only way of proving intent in the typical case’ of criminal attempt” (Bracey, 41 N.Y.2d at 301, 392 N.Y.S.2d 412, 360 N.E.2d 1094 ).
Turning to the specific facts of defendant's case, we conclude that there is sufficient circumstantial evidence based on defendant's appearance and conduct, and the surrounding events to support an inference that defendant intended to commit second-degree robbery. With respect to his appearance, defendant and his...
To continue reading
Request your trial