SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

485 

KA 10-02133 

PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., FAHEY, CARNI, SCONIERS, AND MARTOCHE, JJ. 

 

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, APPELLANT, 

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

JACOB J. MERCER, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT. 

 

FRANK A. SEDITA, III, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, BUFFALO (DONNA A. MILLING OF

COUNSEL), FOR APPELLANT. 

THE LEGAL AID BUREAU OF BUFFALO, INC., BUFFALO (ROBERT B. HALLBORG,

JR., OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT. 

 

Appeal from an order of the Erie County Court (Michael F.

Pietruszka, J.), dated July 21, 2010. The order granted, without

prejudice, the motion of defendant to dismiss the indictment. 

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is

unanimously reversed on the law, that part of the omnibus motion

seeking to dismiss the indictment is denied, the indictment is

reinstated and the matter is remitted to Erie County Court for further

proceedings on the indictment. 

Memorandum: The People appeal from an order granting that part

of defendant’s omnibus motion seeking to dismiss the indictment

charging him with robbery in the first degree (Penal Law § 160.15

[3]). County Court concluded that the People presented legally

insufficient evidence with respect to the identity of the perpetrator. 

We agree with the People that reversal is required.

“In the context of a motion to dismiss an indictment, the

sufficiency of the People’s presentation ‘is properly determined by

inquiring whether the evidence viewed in the light most favorable to

the People, if unexplained and uncontradicted, would warrant

conviction by a petit jury’ ” (People v Galatro, 84 NY2d 160, 163). 

The People must establish “that the accused committed the crime

charged by presenting legally sufficient evidence establishing all of

the elements of the crime . . .[,] and the court is not to weigh the

proof or examine its adequacy” (id. at 164). 

“A person is guilty of robbery in the first degree when he [or

she] forcibly steals property and when, in the course of the

commission of the crime or of immediate flight therefrom, he or [she]

. . . [u]ses or threatens the immediate use of a dangerous instrument”

(Penal Law § 160.15 [3]). Here, the evidence before the grand jury
-2- 485 

KA 10-02133 

established that a man stole condoms from a grocery store and

brandished a knife at two store employees while fleeing the crime

scene. Based on the robbery report and description of the perpetrator

from the two store employees, the police located defendant shortly

after the robbery in the vicinity of the store. The officers arrested

him and seized the condoms from his person. A knife matching the

description provided by one of the store employees was found in

proximity to the location where defendant was apprehended. At the

police station, defendant admitted robbing the store, and one of the

store employees identified the knife recovered by the police as the

knife that was used in the robbery. Although the store employees

never identified defendant as the perpetrator, the circumstantial

evidence, when viewed as a whole, was sufficient for the grand jury to

infer that defendant was the perpetrator and that the store employees

and the police officers were testifying with respect to the same

individual (see People v Ngor Yip, 118 AD2d 472, 473-474). We

therefore conclude that the evidence before the grand jury was legally

sufficient to support a prima facie case of robbery in the first

degree (see People v Woelfle, 64 AD3d 1166, 1167-1168, lv denied 14

NY3d 846; Ngor Yip, 118 AD2d at 473-474). 

Entered: April 29, 2011 Patricia L. Morgan

Clerk of the Court