From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Lawrence

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Nov 1, 1994
209 A.D.2d 165 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)

Opinion

November 1, 1994

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Howard E. Bell, J.).


Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People (People v. Malizia, 62 N.Y.2d 755, 757, cert denied 469 U.S. 932), we find that the defendant's conduct in unlocking the safety gate between subway cars prior to snatching the victim's purse and then escaping by jumping to the platform from the moving train was a sufficiently direct cause of the victim's death. The victim pursued the defendant to recover her purse but fell between the train and platform resulting in her death. The victim's pursuit and attempt to get back her property under these circumstances made her death clearly foreseeable and reasonably related to the acts of the defendant (see, People v. Matos, 83 N.Y.2d 509).

Moreover, "[w]e are not persuaded that defendant engaged in a nonphysical, unobtrusive, snatching" of the victim's purse (People v. Rivera, 160 A.D.2d 419, lv denied 76 N.Y.2d 795). Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People, as we must, there was sufficient evidence for the jury to find a forcible taking based on the eyewitness description of the manner in which the victim held her purse and the defendant's statements following arrest. These included a reenactment of the crime by the defendant in a videotaped statement, in which he clearly demonstrates that he forcibly took the bag.

Further, it is now clear that a defendant's right to be present at sidebar discussions, whether the subject is specific or general bias, is prospective only from the date of the decision in People v. Antommarchi ( 80 N.Y.2d 247), October 27, 1992 (People v. Sprowal, 84 N.Y.2d 113). Here, the voir dire took place prior to that date.

Finally, we find the police conduct in seizing the defendant and then arresting him for possession of the stolen property to be reasonable, under the circumstances as testified to by the officers (see, People v. Chestnut, 51 N.Y.2d 14, 21, cert denied 449 U.S. 1018), bearing in mind that the determination of a hearing court must be accorded much weight (People v. Prochilo, 41 N.Y.2d 759, 761).

Concur — Ellerin, J.P., Ross, Asch, Rubin and Williams, JJ.


Summaries of

People v. Lawrence

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Nov 1, 1994
209 A.D.2d 165 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)
Case details for

People v. Lawrence

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. BRIAN LAWRENCE…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: Nov 1, 1994

Citations

209 A.D.2d 165 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)
617 N.Y.S.2d 769

Citing Cases

United States v. Steed

But, not all of them do. In particular, People v. Lawrence, 209 A.D.2d 165, 617 N.Y.S.2d 769 (1994), suggests…

United States v. Rabb

Steed held that "there is a realistic probability that ... the least of the acts" that this provision…