New York Law Review

Tag: Weapon Display

  • People v. Lockwood, 73 N.Y.2d 758 (1988): Entitlement to Affirmative Defense Charge in Robbery Cases

    People v. Lockwood, 73 N.Y.2d 758 (1988)

    A defendant is entitled to a jury charge on the affirmative defense to first-degree robbery if sufficient evidence is presented for a jury to find, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the object displayed was not a loaded weapon capable of producing death or serious physical injury.

    Summary

    Lockwood was convicted of first-degree robbery. The victim claimed Lockwood motioned as if he had a gun while demanding money on a subway train. Lockwood never removed his hand from his pocket, and the victim never saw a gun. After Lockwood exited the train, the victim alerted police, who apprehended him nearby with dollar bills but no weapon. The trial court denied Lockwood’s request to charge the jury on the affirmative defense that the displayed object was not a loaded weapon. The Appellate Division reversed, reducing the conviction. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the evidence presented a factual question for the jury regarding whether the object displayed was a firearm, and therefore, the affirmative defense charge should have been given.

    Facts

    The complainant was riding alone on a subway train when Lockwood approached her. Lockwood motioned with his hand in his pocket as if he had a gun and demanded money. Believing Lockwood had a gun, the complainant surrendered money. Lockwood never removed his hand from his pocket, and the complainant never saw a gun. Lockwood exited the train and walked to an underpass. The complainant immediately told police she had been robbed. Police apprehended Lockwood nearby with dollar bills, but no weapon was found on his person or along his route.

    Procedural History

    Lockwood was convicted of first-degree robbery in the trial court. The trial court refused to charge the jury on the affirmative defense that the object displayed was not a loaded weapon. The Appellate Division reversed the conviction and reduced it to second-degree robbery, holding that the failure to give the requested charge was error. The People appealed to the Court of Appeals.

    Issue(s)

    Whether the trial court erred in refusing to charge the jury on the affirmative defense to robbery in the first degree, specifically, that the object displayed was not a loaded weapon capable of producing death or other serious physical injury.

    Holding

    Yes, because the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the defendant, was sufficient to present a factual question for the jury as to whether the object displayed was a firearm capable of causing death or serious physical injury.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The Court of Appeals relied on Penal Law § 160.15(4), which provides an affirmative defense to robbery in the first degree if the object displayed was not a loaded weapon capable of causing death or serious physical injury. The court cited prior cases, including People v. Moye and People v. Baskerville, to emphasize that a defendant is entitled to a charge on this affirmative defense when there is sufficient evidence to support it.

    The court noted that the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to Lockwood, created a factual question for the jury. The police officer retraced Lockwood’s path but found no weapon. The complainant never saw a gun or its outline, and no gun was ever recovered. The Court stated, “Given these undisputed facts, the jury could have concluded that the object displayed in the course of the robbery was not a loaded weapon capable of producing death or other serious physical injury, and defendant’s request to so charge should therefore have been granted.” The court emphasized that it is the jury’s role to weigh the evidence and determine whether the affirmative defense is established by a preponderance of the evidence.

  • People v. Baskerville, 60 N.Y.2d 374 (1983): When Failure to Charge Affirmative Defense is Reversible Error

    People v. Baskerville, 60 N.Y.2d 374 (1983)

    When the evidence presented at trial reasonably supports a jury finding that the defendant committed robbery while displaying an object that appeared to be a firearm but was not, the trial court’s failure to instruct the jury on the affirmative defense to first-degree robbery constitutes reversible error.

    Summary

    Baskerville was convicted of first-degree robbery for allegedly using a weapon to rob a gas station attendant. The evidence regarding the use of a weapon was not conclusive; the attendant didn’t see a gun, and other witnesses described a cylindrical or metallic object. Baskerville claimed he used a toothbrush and a toothbrush was found on him. The trial court denied Baskerville’s request to charge the jury on the affirmative defense that the displayed object was not a loaded weapon. The New York Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the denial was reversible error because the jury could have believed Baskerville used a toothbrush that appeared to be a pistol, and thus, without the instruction, felt obligated to convict him of first-degree robbery.

    Facts

    In the early morning hours of November 14, 1977, Baskerville allegedly robbed a gas station attendant by holding an object to the attendant’s neck and threatening to shoot him.

    Police arrived during the commission of the crime, and Baskerville fled in a car, pursued by police gunfire.

    New Jersey State Troopers apprehended Baskerville approximately 25 minutes after the robbery.

    When asked by police where the gun was, Baskerville stated that he did not have a gun and that he had used a toothbrush.

    No gun was found, but a white toothbrush was discovered in Baskerville’s coat pocket.

    The gas station attendant did not see the alleged gun, and another attendant could not identify Baskerville as the perpetrator.

    Two police officers testified that Baskerville had a cylindrical object in his hand.

    Another witness testified that the perpetrator held a sharp metallic object.

    An officer testified that Baskerville stated he used a toothbrush, not a gun.

    Procedural History

    Baskerville was convicted of robbery in the first degree in a New York trial court.

    Baskerville appealed, arguing that the trial court erred in refusing to charge the jury on the lesser included offense of robbery in the second degree and on the affirmative defense to robbery in the first degree.

    The Appellate Division affirmed the conviction.

    The New York Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division’s order and ordered a new trial.

    Issue(s)

    Whether the trial court committed reversible error by refusing the defendant’s request to charge the jury regarding the affirmative defense to robbery in the first degree, where the evidence suggested the object displayed may not have been a firearm.

    Holding

    Yes, because, under the circumstances of this case, it was reversible error for the court to refuse defendant’s request to charge the jury regarding the affirmative defense.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The Court of Appeals reasoned that the trial court’s refusal to charge the jury on the affirmative defense prejudiced Baskerville because the jury might have believed he used a toothbrush that appeared to be a pistol and, without the instruction on the affirmative defense, felt compelled to find him guilty of first-degree robbery.

    New York Penal Law § 160.15 defines robbery in the first degree as forcibly stealing property while displaying what appears to be a pistol or other firearm. However, it also provides an affirmative defense if the displayed weapon was not a loaded weapon from which a shot could be discharged.

    The court emphasized that the testimony regarding the use of a weapon was not overwhelming, and Baskerville claimed he used a toothbrush. The prosecutor even acknowledged this argument during summation, stating, “It’s for you to decide whether the defendant used a toothbrush or a shotgun or a handgun or a weapon”.

    The court noted that if Baskerville successfully proved his affirmative defense, he could still be found guilty of robbery in the second degree, which only requires displaying what appears to be a firearm, regardless of whether it is actually a firearm. “If, of course, a defendant successfully proves his affirmative defense, he may still be found guilty of robbery in the second degree, which requires only that the defendant forcibly steal property while displaying what appears to be a firearm (Penal Law, § 160.10, subd 2, par [b] ; Hechtman, Practice Commentaries, McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 39, Penal Law, § 160.15, p 206).”