Court Opinion

ID: 9785239
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-30 21:11:33.261248+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:36:07.285240
License: Public Domain

Jones, J.
(dissenting in part). The question before the Court— whether there was legally sufficient evidence to support defendant’s first-degree robbery conviction (see Penal Law § 160.15 [3])—is here on the People’s appeal. Defendant was charged in a single indictment with two robberies, one occurring on May 24 and one on May 31, 2004. I agree with the majority in holding that the trial court properly exercised its discretion in denying defendant’s motion to sever the trials of the two robberies under CPL 200.20 (3) (a).
However, I disagree with the majority’s conclusion, with respect to the May 31, 2004 robbery, that there was legally sufficient evidence that defendant committed a robbery in the first degree (Penal Law § 160.15 [3] [which requires use or threatened use of a “dangerous instrument”]) and that the Appellate Division erred by concluding that the “charge adequately alerted *880the jury to the ‘actual possession’ element of the crime.” The majority argues that defendant failed to preserve his claim of legal insufficiency because he did not object to the jury charge. Specifically, the majority contends that although defendant moved for a trial order of dismissal based on insufficient evidence of a knife, he was required to object to the jury charge as given, and that having failed to object to the jury charge, defendant loses his claim of legal insufficiency. Put differently, the majority contends that to preserve his claim of insufficiency, defendant should have requested that the court instruct the jury that robbery in the first degree required proof of an actual knife.
The jury charge was not incorrect.* The trial court, as part of its charge to the jury, instructed that a “dangerous instrument means any instrument, which under the circumstances in which it is used, is readily capable of causing death or other serious physical injury.” Reading this definition in conjunction with the portion of the charge quoted by the majority (majority mem at 877-878) makes clear that in order for defendant to be convicted of robbery in the first degree, the People must prove that he actually possessed a knife.
The majority’s approach leads to a bizarre result. Under their view, the lack of evidence of a “dangerous instrument” (a knife) is held to be legally sufficient “evidence” because the jury charge was erroneous and defendant failed to make an objection, ask for a correction or seek clarification he was entitled to. If the court had given the clearer charge, defendant would be allowed to argue sufficiency—an issue that he preserved—under the correct view of the law. However, because the charge didn’t “adequately alert the jury” to the correct view of the law, the case must be decided as though the incorrect view of the law, left open by the charge, was correct. This, frankly, makes no sense.
In support of their position, the majority cites People v Sala (95 NY2d 254 [2000]) and People v Dekle (56 NY2d 835 [1982]). The majority’s reliance on Sala and Dekle is misplaced and their position is in conflict with People v Jean-Baptiste (11 NY3d 539 [2008]), a case recently decided by this Court. In Jean-Baptiste, we noted (at 544) that
“the defendant made a specific motion to dismiss for legal insufficiency at trial, anticipating the *881change in the law brought by [People v Feingold (7 NY3d 288, 294 [2006]), which overruled People v Register (60 NY2d 270 [1983]) and held that ‘depraved indifference to human life is a culpable mental state’]. The principle the People cite is inapplicable when, as in this case, defense counsel made a specific motion for a trial order of dismissal. Having made that motion, defense counsel did not additionally have to take an exception to the court’s depraved indifference murder charge” (citation omitted).
As Jean-Baptiste points out, Sala and Dekle are distinguishable from that case—as they are from this one—because in those two cases the defendants advanced a different legal theory on appeal than the one they advanced before the trial court.
The instant case is analogous to Jean-Baptiste. Defendant Ford made a motion for a trial order of dismissal. As in Jean-Baptiste, the instant charge as given was not erroneous or at very least, did not misstate the law. Additionally, the objection made at trial as to the legal insufficiency was clearly stated and understood by the court and the People and was the same argument made on appeal.
In this case, the People charge that defendant possessed a knife as a dangerous instrument. They rely on defendant’s statement to the victim that he had a knife, along with a gesture towards his pants pocket, to meet the statutory requirement of possession of a dangerous instrument. The victim testified that he never saw a knife; nor was a knife recovered, even though defendant was arrested a short time after the crime. Also, the injuries sustained by the victim were from punches delivered by the defendant.
A verbal threat by a defendant that he possesses a dangerous instrument, standing alone, is clearly insufficient to establish the “dangerous instrument” element of robbery in the first degree (see People v Moore, 185 AD2d 825 [2d Dept 1992]; People v White, 155 AD2d 934 [4th Dept 1989]; People v Robare, 109 AD2d 923 [3d Dept 1985]). There must be proof of an actual knife. Assuming that there could be cases in which a defendant’s admission would be sufficient proof that a knife was actually present, this is not such a case. In White, the defendant threatened the victim by saying that he had a razor, but the victim never saw a razor nor was a razor recovered (see 155 AD2d at 934). The court, in reducing the burglary in the first *882degree conviction to burglary in the third degree, held “there was no valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences to lead a rational person to the conclusion that defendant had actual possession of a razor” (id., citing People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). The same can be said of the possession of a knife under these facts.
As the Appellate Division aptly pointed out, a defendant to be guilty of this offense must not only use or threaten the use of a dangerous instrument, he must actually possess a dangerous instrument (see People v Pena, 50 NY2d 400, 407 [1980], cert denied 449 US 1087 [1981]).
Based on the foregoing, I would affirm the order of the Appellate Division and find that the defendant was only guilty of robbery in the third degree.
Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Ciparick, Graffeo and Read concur in memorandum; Judge Jones dissents in part and votes to affirm in an opinion in which Judges Smith and Pigott concur.
Order modified, etc.

 In fact, the People, who are appellants here, never objected to the jury charge as given.