People v. Close, 73 N.Y.2d 779 (1988)

Sufficient evidence to support a robbery conviction, and thus a felony murder conviction, exists where the jury can reasonably disbelieve the defendant’s claim of being an innocent bystander based on circumstantial evidence suggesting participation in the underlying felony.

Summary

The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the defendant’s conviction for two counts of felony murder and one count of robbery. The defendant argued the evidence was insufficient to prove he was an accessory to the robbery that led to the victims’ deaths. The Court of Appeals held that the jury was entitled to disbelieve the defendant’s claim of being merely present during the robbery, given evidence that he anticipated earning money that night and displayed a large sum of money after the murders, and testimony from a friend that Close admitted to striking one of the victims. Because there was sufficient evidence to support the underlying felony of robbery, the felony murder convictions were also upheld. The court also found that consecutive sentences were permissible because the deaths resulted from separate acts.

Facts

Warren and Mary Lynch were found bludgeoned to death in their store and residence on January 26, 1983. The next day, the defendant, Close, gave a statement recounting the events, claiming that he and Ronald Dingman went to the store to find marihuana, and that Dingman said he was going to “hit” the store. Close claimed Dingman struck Warren Lynch with a lead pipe, and then struck Mary Lynch after Close “froze” when asked to do so. Close said Dingman took money from the register and offered Close half, which Close refused. A co-worker testified that Close said he might earn extra money towing cars that night. The day after the murders, Close told the same co-worker that he had a “rough night working” and displayed a wad of money. Another friend testified Close told him that he and Dingman entered the store, Close pretended to buy an axe handle, then struck the old woman with it. Dingman then pushed Close aside and “finished off the old lady.”

Procedural History

Close was acquitted of intentional murder but convicted of two counts of felony murder and one count of robbery in the trial court. He received consecutive sentences of 18 years to life for the felony murder convictions. The Appellate Division unanimously affirmed the convictions. The case then went to the New York Court of Appeals.

Issue(s)

1. Whether there was sufficient evidence to support the jury’s finding that Close was an accessory to the robbery of the store, thereby supporting the felony murder convictions.

2. Whether the imposition of consecutive sentences for the two felony murder convictions was illegal.

Holding

1. Yes, because there was sufficient evidence for the jury to disbelieve Close’s claim of being an innocent bystander and to conclude he was a participant in the robbery.

2. No, because the deaths of Warren and Mary Lynch resulted from separate acts, neither of which was a material element of the other.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeals found that the jury had a basis to disbelieve Close’s statement to the police that he was merely an innocent bystander. The court pointed to the co-worker’s testimony that Close anticipated earning money that night and displayed a large sum of money afterward, consistent with receiving proceeds from the robbery. The court also emphasized the friend’s testimony that Close admitted he feigned purchasing an axe handle and struck the old woman with it, which provided evidentiary support for finding Close participated in the robbery. Because there was sufficient evidence to support Close’s guilt of robbery in the first degree, and because the deaths occurred during that crime, the felony murder convictions were supported by sufficient evidence. The court noted that Close did not establish an affirmative defense to felony murder.

Regarding the sentences, the court reasoned that although the deaths occurred during a single transaction (the robbery), they resulted from separate acts. Neither act was a material element of the other. Therefore, consecutive sentences were permissible under Penal Law § 70.25(2). The court acknowledged that the lower courts had the discretion to impose concurrent sentences, but they were not required to do so. “it was separate acts that caused the deaths of the two victims, and neither act was a material element of the other”.