People v. Roldan
| Decision Date | 25 April 1996 |
| Citation | 88 N.Y.2d 826,666 N.E.2d 553,643 N.Y.S.2d 960 |
| Parties | , 666 N.E.2d 553 The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Victor ROLDAN, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.
Defendant was convicted of two counts of robbery in the first degree following a jury trial. Eyewitness testimony showed that defendant and an accomplice were engaged in conversation prior to the robbery, and that during the course of the crime, defendant stood by "looking out" over the surrounding area while the accomplice robbed the two victims at knifepoint. Police officers added proof that defendant and the accomplice fled the scene together and were apprehended a few blocks away.
The Appellate Division affirmed defendant's conviction, rejecting his argument that the People's case rested solely on circumstantial evidence and that the trial court erred in denying the defense request for a circumstantial evidence instruction. A dissenting Justice at the Appellate Division granted leave to appeal, and we now affirm that Court's ruling upholding the conviction.
A defendant's request for a circumstantial evidence instruction must be allowed when proof of guilt rests exclusively on circumstantial evidence (see, People v. Barnes, 50 N.Y.2d 375, 380, 429 N.Y.S.2d 178, 406 N.E.2d 1071). This case involves direct evidence and, thus, does not qualify for the circumstantial evidence instruction. Eyewitness testimony, if believed by the jury, established that defendant engaged in acts which directly proved that at the very least he acted as a lookout while the crime was being committed (see, People v. Daddona, 81 N.Y.2d 990, 992, 599 N.Y.S.2d 530, 615 N.E.2d 1014). Coupled with conduct before and after the actual commission of the crime, defendant's accessorial guilt cannot be viewed as premised solely on circumstantial evidence. Thus, the instructional request was properly denied, and the Appellate Division order affirming the conviction should be sustained.
Order affirmed in a memorandum.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Avincola v. Stinson
...circumstantial evidence of intent does not "trigger the necessity for a circumstantial evidence charge"), aff'd, 88 N.Y.2d 826, 643 N.Y.S.2d 960, 666 N.E.2d 553 (1996). Avincola's admission to Rivera that he had just killed Garcia constituted direct evidence of the murder; therefore, the ca......
-
Norwood v. Artis
...People v. Daddona, 81 N.Y.2d at 992, 599 N.Y.S.2d 530, 615 N.E.2d 1014 (citations omitted); accord People v. Roldan, 88 N.Y.2d 826, 827, 643 N.Y.S.2d 960, 666 N.E.2d 553 (N.Y.1996) (holding that case against defendant involved direct evidence — namely eyewitness testimony which, if believed......
-
Dayton v. Lavalley
... ... proof for each of the offenses was material and admissible ... with respect to the other counts. People v. Dayton, ... 66 A.D.3d 797, 798, 887 N.Y.S.2d 184, 185 (2d Dep't ... 2009). The court also held that “[v]iewing the evidence ... direct evidence, it “does not qualify for the ... circumstantial evidence instruction.” People v ... Roldan, 88 N.Y.2d 826, 827, 666 N.E.2d 553, 554, 643 ... N.Y.S.2d 960, 961 (1996). Such an instruction would state ... that “the facts from ... ...
-
People v. James
...907 N.Y.S.2d 460, 933 N.E.2d 1053 [2010] ; People v. Roldan, 211 A.D.2d 366, 367–368, 627 N.Y.S.2d 1014 [1995], affd. 88 N.Y.2d 826, 643 N.Y.S.2d 960, 666 N.E.2d 553 [1996] ) or a defendant's incriminating statements to others if such statements "constitute[ ] a relevant admission of guilt"......