People v. Smith, 55 N.Y.2d 890 (1981)

A defendant is entitled to a jury instruction on a lesser included offense if there is a reasonable view of the evidence to support a finding that the defendant committed the lesser offense but not the greater offense.

Summary

Defendant was convicted of robbery in the first degree. The Court of Appeals reversed the conviction and ordered a new trial, holding that the trial court erred in refusing the defendant’s request to charge the jury on the lesser included offense of robbery in the second degree. The defendant’s confession, admitted into evidence, stated that the weapon used was a toy gun. The court reasoned that this evidence provided a reasonable basis for the jury to conclude that the firearm was not a loaded weapon capable of producing death or serious physical injury, which is a requirement for first-degree robbery. Therefore, the defendant was entitled to the lesser offense instruction.

Facts

The defendant was charged with robbery in the first degree. During the trial, the prosecution introduced the defendant’s confession as part of its direct case. The confession included a statement indicating that the weapon the defendant used during the robbery was a toy gun.

Procedural History

The trial court refused the defendant’s request to instruct the jury on the lesser included offense of robbery in the second degree. The jury convicted the defendant of robbery in the first degree. The Appellate Division affirmed the conviction. The Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division’s order and ordered a new trial.

Issue(s)

Whether the trial court erred in refusing the defendant’s request to charge the jury on the lesser included offense of robbery in the second degree, given the defendant’s confession stating that the weapon used was a toy gun?

Holding

Yes, because the defendant’s confession provided a reasonable basis for the jury to conclude that the firearm displayed by the defendant was not a loaded weapon from which a shot, readily capable of producing death or other serious physical injury, could be discharged.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeals held that the trial court erred in refusing the defendant’s request to charge the jury on robbery in the second degree. The court reasoned that the defendant’s confession, which stated that the weapon used was a toy gun, provided a reasonable basis for the jury to conclude that the firearm displayed by the defendant was not a loaded weapon capable of producing death or serious physical injury. The court cited Penal Law § 160.15, subd 4, which defines robbery in the first degree as involving the use of a deadly weapon or what appears to be a deadly weapon. The court also cited CPL 300.50, subds 1, 2, which require the court to submit a lesser included offense to the jury if there is a reasonable view of the evidence that would support a finding that the defendant committed the lesser offense but not the greater. The court stated, “[T]he weapon defendant was carrying during the robbery was a toy gun. This statement provided a reasonable basis in the evidence for the jury to conclude that the firearm displayed by defendant ‘was not a loaded weapon from which a shot, readily capable of producing death or other serious physical injury, could be discharged.’” The Court explicitly noted that the charge concerning accomplice liability did not cure the error of refusing to charge the lesser included offense. The court concluded that the defendant was entitled to a charge on the lesser offense of robbery in the second degree. The court also addressed the defendant’s argument that his statements should have been suppressed as the result of an arrest effected in his home without a warrant and in the absence of exigent circumstances. However, the court found that the defendant had failed to preserve that issue for appellate review because he did not raise it before the suppression court, citing People v Gonzalez, 55 NY2d 887.