People v. Larkins

Citation128 A.D.3d 1436,2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 03956,8 N.Y.S.3d 755
Decision Date08 May 2015
Docket Number256 KA 11-02497
PartiesThe PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Ronald LARKINS, Defendant–Appellant.
CourtNew York Supreme Court Appellate Division

128 A.D.3d 1436
8 N.Y.S.3d 755
2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 03956

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent
v.
Ronald LARKINS, Defendant–Appellant.

256 KA 11-02497

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.

May 8, 2015.


8 N.Y.S.3d 756

Frank H. Hiscock Legal Aid Society, Syracuse (Christine M. Cook of Counsel), for Defendant–Appellant.

Ronald Larkins, Defendant–Appellant Pro Se.

William J. Fitzpatrick, District Attorney, Syracuse (James P. Maxwell of Counsel), for Respondent.

PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., CENTRA, SCONIERS, and VALENTINO, JJ.

Opinion

MEMORANDUM:

128 A.D.3d 1437

Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon a jury verdict of attempted robbery in the first degree (Penal Law §§ 110.00, 160.15 [4 ] ) in connection with his attempt to rob a Ramada Inn in DeWitt, Onondaga County (hereafter, DeWitt attempted robbery), at approximately 12:25 p.m. on August 24, 2010. The evidence at trial included a video recording made by the hotel's security system, in which defendant can clearly be seen entering the building, speaking with the hotel desk clerk, drawing a weapon and pointing it over the counter at the clerk, but then immediately fleeing the building after the clerk ducked and ran from the counter. The video recording shows that defendant wore aviator-style sunglasses, a black shirt or jacket, and a blue necktie. A witness also testified that a man fitting defendant's description and wearing a T-shirt or tank top ran from the vicinity of the Ramada Inn immediately after the DeWitt attempted robbery and then left the area in a brown- or rust-colored Toyota or Lexus.

Members of the New York State Police testified that they stopped defendant on the New York State Thruway approximately 90 minutes after the DeWitt attempted robbery, after Thruway toll collectors at an exit near Weedsport indicated that a brown Toyota or Lexus, generally matching the description of the getaway car, had just entered the Thruway. The police took defendant into custody and found $225 in his pocket. In the vehicle, they also found a necktie, a handgun, and a pair of sunglasses matching those used by the perpetrator in the DeWitt attempted robbery. At the time of the stop, defendant was wearing, inter alia, a green dress shirt on top of a red T-shirt.

Defendant was also charged, in a separate indictment in Cayuga County, with the robbery of a Best Western hotel in Weedsport (hereafter, Weedsport robbery), which occurred approximately an hour after, but prior to defendant's arrest on, the DeWitt attempted robbery. Pursuant to a Molineux ruling (see People v. Molineux, 168 N.Y. 264, 293, 61 N.E. 286 ), the front desk clerk from the hotel in the

8 N.Y.S.3d 757

Weedsport robbery testified, during the trial of the DeWitt attempted robbery that is before us on this appeal, that she was robbed at gunpoint by a man wearing a green shirt. She further testified that the perpetrator took approximately $200, although she was not certain of the exact amount taken. Pursuant to County Court's Molineux ruling, that witness was not permitted to identify defendant as the perpetrator of the Weedsport robbery.

Defendant contends that he was deprived of a fair trial by

128 A.D.3d 1438

the court's Molineux ruling. In determining that the evidence would be admitted, the court concluded, among other things, that the evidence was “ relevant and material to ... the issue[s] of intent” and identification, and “ inextricably interwoven” with the evidence of the charge of attempted robbery being tried. The court also gave limiting instructions regarding the proper use of the Molineux evidence by the jury, which defendant does not challenge on appeal. We conclude that the court's Molineux ruling was not an abuse of discretion (see generally People v. Duperroy, 88 A.D.3d 606, 607, 931 N.Y.S.2d 70, lv. denied 18 N.Y.3d 957, 944 N.Y.S.2d 485, 967 N.E.2d 710 ; People v. Galloway, 61 A.D.3d 520, 520–521, 876 N.Y.S.2d 406, lv. denied 12 N.Y.3d 915, 884 N.Y.S.2d 696, 912 N.E.2d 1077 ).

“It is fundamental that evidence of uncharged crimes is not admissible if the sole purpose is to show that the defendant was predisposed to commit the crime charged ... On the other hand, evidence relevant to prove some fact in the case, other than the defendant's criminal propensity, is not rendered inadmissible simply because it may also reveal that the defendant has committed other crimes” (People v. Allweiss, 48 N.Y.2d 40, 46–47, 421 N.Y.S.2d 341, 396 N.E.2d 735 ). Pursuant to the rule in Molineux, 168 N.Y. at 293, 61 N.E. 286, “evidence of uncharged crimes may be relevant to show (1) intent, (2) motive, (3) knowledge, (4) common scheme or plan, or (5) identity of the defendant” (People v. Alvino, 71 N.Y.2d 233, 242, 525 N.Y.S.2d 7, 519 N.E.2d 808 ). “As a corollary, such evidence may be allowed when, as here, it ... is found to be needed as background material or to complete the narrative of the episode” (People v. Till, 87 N.Y.2d 835, 837, 637 N.Y.S.2d 681, 661 N.E.2d 153 [internal quotation marks omitted] ).

Here, the court concluded that the Molineux evidence was admissible to establish defendant's intent, identity, and motive, and to complete the narrative of the events. Initially, we agree with defendant that such evidence was not properly admitted on the issue of identity inasmuch as defendant's identity as the perpetrator of the attempted robbery was “ ‘conclusively established’ ” by the clear video recording from the hotel's security system (People v. Robinson, 68 N.Y.2d 541, 548, 510 N.Y.S.2d 837, 503 N.E.2d 485 ).

We conclude, however, that the court properly admitted the Molineux evidence pursuant to the remaining grounds upon which it relied, i.e., to establish defendant's intent and motive, and to complete the narrative, with respect to the crime herein. Along with the other elements of the crime herein, the People were required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant intended to steal property (see Penal Law § 160.15 ; People v. De Jesus, 123 A.D.2d 563, 564, 507 N.Y.S.2d 144, lv. denied 69 N.Y.2d 745, 512 N.Y.S.2d 1049, 505 N.E.2d 247 ; see generally People v. Starks, 46 A.D.3d 1426, 1427, 848 N.Y.S.2d 467, lv. denied 10 N.Y.3d 817, 857 N.Y.S.2d 50, 886 N.E.2d 815 ; People v. Osinowo, 28 A.D.3d 1011, 1012–1013, 813 N.Y.S.2d 283,

128 A.D.3d 1439

lv. denied 7 N.Y.3d 792, 821 N.Y.S.2d 822, 854 N.E.2d 1286 ). Contrary to defendant's

8 N.Y.S.3d 758

contention, the court properly admitted evidence that defendant stole property during the Weedsport robbery as evidence that he intended to steal property during the crime herein. It has long been settled that the Molineux rule contains an “exception thereto[ ] that permits such evidence when ‘the transactions in respect to which evidence was given were all intimately connected in point of time, place[,] and circumstance with that for which the accused was indicted, so that they formed a continuous series of transactions, each throwing light upon the other, upon the question of knowledge, intent, and motive’ ” (People v. Friedman, 149 App.Div. 873, 875, 134 N.Y.S. 153 ). Here, the jury could conclude, based upon the evidence that the Weedsport robbery occurred shortly after the DeWitt attempted robbery, that defendant was engaged in “a continuous series of transactions” (id. ), pursuant to which he first attempted to rob the hotel in DeWitt and, having failed to obtain money during that crime, continued his criminal efforts until he was successful in the Weedsport robbery. Furthermore, the “ probative and explanatory value [of the Molineux evidence] clearly outweighed the potential prejudice to defendant, particularly since the later incident can readily be viewed as a continuation of the” crime herein (People v. Tarver, 2 A.D.3d 968, 969, 768 N.Y.S.2d 391 ). Thus, the evidence that defendant committed another robbery a short time after this unsuccessful attempt was admissible to show his intent and motive to commit this crime (see generally People v. Burnell, 89 A.D.3d 1118, 1120–1121, 931 N.Y.S.2d 776, lv. denied 18 N.Y.3d 922, 942 N.Y.S.2d 461, 965 N.E.2d 963 ).

The court also properly admitted the Molineux evidence to complete the narrative of the crime herein and to provide necessary background information for it. Absent the Molineux evidence, the jury would have been left to speculate why defendant was stopped on the Thruway about five exits away from the scene of the crime herein and over an hour later, in a vaguely described vehicle, wearing different clothing than either the clerk or the witness described defendant as wearing, and possessing $225 in cash. Thus, the Molineux evidence was properly admitted to explain the reason for the stop (see People v. Radoncic, 259 A.D.2d 428, 428, 687 N.Y.S.2d 141, lv. denied 93 N.Y.2d 1005, 695 N.Y.S.2d 751, 717 N.E.2d 1088 ; People v. Hernandez, 139 A.D.2d 472, 477, 527 N.Y.S.2d 404, lv. denied 72 N.Y.2d 957, 534 N.Y.S.2d 671, 531 N.E.2d 303 ), and to “provide background information as to how and why the police pursued and confronted defendant” (People v. Tosca, 98...

To continue reading

Request your trial
30 cases
  • People v. Kates
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
    • June 15, 2018
    ......, and thus defendant's objections were insufficient to demonstrate good cause for substitution of counsel" ( People v. Larkins, 128 A.D.3d 1436, 1441, 8 N.Y.S.3d 755 [4th Dept. 2015], lv denied 27 N.Y.3d 1001, 38 N.Y.S.3d 110, 59 N.E.3d 1222 [2016] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see......
  • People v. Boodrow
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
    • May 12, 2022
    ...801, 801–802, 87 N.Y.S.3d 235 [2018], lv denied 32 N.Y.3d 1205, 99 N.Y.S.3d 247, 122 N.E.3d 1159 [2019] ; People v. Larkins, 128 A.D.3d 1436, 1440–1441, 8 N.Y.S.3d 755 [2015], lv denied 27 N.Y.3d 1001, 38 N.Y.S.3d 110, 59 N.E.3d 1222 [2016] ). Defendant's subsequent requests to substitute c......
  • People v. Norman
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
    • May 1, 2020
    ...1555, 1558, 95 N.Y.S.3d 681 [4th Dept. 2019], lv denied 33 N.Y.3d 1071, 105 N.Y.S.3d 12, 129 N.E.3d 332 [2019] ; People v. Larkins, 128 A.D.3d 1436, 1441–1442, 8 N.Y.S.3d 755 [4th Dept. 2015], lv denied 27 N.Y.3d 1001, 38 N.Y.S.3d 110, 59 N.E.3d 1222 [2016] ). Here, the People's proffered r......
  • People v. Smith
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
    • December 23, 2021
    ...alternative to his frequent and unsupported requests for substitution of assigned counsel," was not unequivocal ( People v. Larkins , 128 A.D.3d 1436, 1441, 8 N.Y.S.3d 755 [4th Dept. 2015], lv denied 27 N.Y.3d 1001, 38 N.Y.S.3d 110, 59 N.E.3d 1222 [2016] ). Thus, County Court did not err in......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT