55 N.Y.2d 1 (1981)
A jury verdict is not repugnant when, examined against the elements of the crimes as charged by the trial court, the findings are not inherently contradictory, even if a different interpretation of the law or facts might suggest inconsistency.
Summary
Defendant was convicted of first-degree robbery but acquitted of criminal possession of a weapon. The robbery charge required proof that the defendant forcibly stole property and used or threatened the use of a knife. The weapon possession charge required proof that the defendant knowingly and unlawfully possessed a knife with the intent to use it unlawfully. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, holding that the verdict was not repugnant because the jury could have found that the defendant threatened the use of a knife without actually possessing one himself, given the way the trial court instructed the jury. This case emphasizes that repugnancy is determined by the specific elements as charged, not necessarily by an independent assessment of the facts.
Facts
The complainant alleged the defendant forcibly stole his motor scooter while using or threatening the use of a knife.
Defendant was charged with first-degree robbery and criminal possession of a weapon.
Procedural History
The defendant was tried and convicted of first-degree robbery, but acquitted of criminal possession of a weapon.
The Appellate Division affirmed the conviction.
The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division’s order.
Issue(s)
Whether the jury’s verdict convicting the defendant of robbery in the first degree while acquitting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree is repugnant, thereby requiring reversal of the robbery conviction.
Holding
No, because based on the elements of the crimes as charged to the jury, the findings were not inherently contradictory. The jury could find that the defendant threatened the immediate use of a knife without actually possessing one.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals focused on the specific jury instructions given at trial. The trial court instructed the jury that to convict the defendant of first-degree robbery, they had to find that the defendant forcibly stole property and used or threatened the immediate use of a knife. For the weapon possession charge, the jury had to find that the defendant knowingly and unlawfully possessed a knife with the intent to use it unlawfully against another.
The court reasoned that the jury could have concluded that the defendant threatened the use of a knife during the robbery without actually possessing the knife himself. The key point was that the *threatened use* of a knife was sufficient for the robbery conviction, while actual possession was required for the weapon possession charge. The court stated, “The finding that defendant threatened immediate use of a knife, however, is not repugnant to a finding that defendant himself did not actually possess a knife. Applying the law as it was charged in this case, the jury was entitled to find that defendant may not have possessed a knife, and yet did threaten to use one.”
The court emphasized that the repugnancy of a verdict must be examined against the elements of the crimes *as charged* by the trial court, not based on a de novo analysis of the facts. The Court cited People v Hampton, 61 NY2d 963 and People v Tucker, 55 NY2d 1. Because the jury instructions allowed for the possibility that the defendant threatened the use of a knife without possessing one, the verdicts were not repugnant.