People v. Lockwood
| Decision Date | 22 December 1980 |
| Parties | , 417 N.E.2d 1244 The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Randolph LOCKWOOD, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
The order of the Appellate Division, 72 A.D.2d 670, 420 N.Y.S.2d 527, should be reversed and a new trial ordered.
Defendant, convicted of robbery in the first degree, was charged with having committed the crime in the early morning hours of November 14, 1977, when, it is claimed, he effected a robbery of a gas station attendant by holding an object to the back of the station attendant's neck and threatening to shoot him. The police arrived during the commission of the crime, and defendant made his escape by car trailed by a hail of bullets. An immediate chase ensued and after the perpetrator had eluded capture by the New York police, defendant was apprehended by the New Jersey State Troopers some 25 minutes after the robbery. According to testimony given at defendant's suppression hearing, when the police at the scene asked the defendant where the gun was, he responded that he did not have a gun, but that he had used a toothbrush. No gun was ever found, but a white toothbrush was discovered in defendant's coat pocket.
The testimony at trial concerning defendant's use and possession of a weapon was not overwhelming. The station attendant from whom the money was taken did not see the alleged gun, and although a second attendant testified that he was certain that a gun was used in the incident, he could not identify the defendant as the perpetrator. Additionally, the two police officers who arrived at the scene of the crime were able only to say that defendant had a cylindrical object in his hand. A fourth witness, also not certain that defendant had a gun testified that the perpetrator held a sharp metallic object. Furthermore, an officer who had processed defendant's arrest testified that "(defendant) advised me he did not have a gun; that he had a toothbrushin the pocket of his coat". This statement was also referred to on summation by the prosecutor, who told the jury: "It's for you to decide whether the defendant used a toothbrush or a shotgun or a handgun or a weapon". Based upon all of the foregoing, the defendant made a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gee v. Conway
... ... The Appellate Division, Fourth Department, of New York State Supreme Court, unanimously affirmed his conviction. People v. Gee, 286 A.D.2d 62, 730 N.Y.S.2d 810 (App.Div. 4th Dept.2002). The New York Court of Appeals granted leave to address, inter alia, Gee's ... Lockwood, 52 N.Y.2d ... Page 233 ... 790, 792, 436 N.Y.S.2d 703, 417 N.E.2d 1244 (1980). If the accused proves by a preponderance of the evidence that ... ...
-
People v. Cotarelo
...an affirmative defense to the crime of first degree robbery has been set forth (see, Penal Law § 160.15[4]; People v. Lockwood, 52 N.Y.2d 790, 436 N.Y.S.2d 703, 417 N.E.2d 1244; People v. Lyde, 98 A.D.2d 650, 469 N.Y.S.2d 716; People v. Stephens, 97 A.D.2d 523, 468 N.Y.S.2d 31; People v. Ro......
-
People v. Baskerville
...he may only be convicted of robbery in the second degree (Penal Law, § 25.00, subd. 2; § 160.15, subd. 4; see People v. Lockwood, 52 N.Y.2d 790, 436 N.Y.S.2d 703, 417 N.E.2d 1244; People v. Felder, 32 N.Y.2d 747, 344 N.Y.S.2d 643, 297 N.E.2d 522, affg. 39 A.D.2d 373, 334 N.Y.S.2d 992, app. ......
-
State v. Butler
...518, 407 P.2d 265, 47 Cal.Rptr. 353 (1965); People v. Ratliff, 22 Ill.App.3d 106, 317 N.E.2d 63 (1974); People v. Lockwood, 52 N.Y.2d 790, 417 N.E.2d 1244, 436 N.Y.S.2d 703 (1981). Usually, the outcome of these cases has depended upon the specific language of the state's robbery statute; th......