Summary
finding the evidence sufficient where the defendant threatened to cut the victim and the victim "did not see the object" but "felt a cold hard object next to her body"
Summary of this case from Rios v. MillerOpinion
November 3, 1986
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (D'Amaro, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence adduced at trial to establish his guilt of robbery in the first degree. In order to prove the defendant's guilt of this crime, the People were required to prove that the defendant actually used an instrument during the crime which was "readily capable of causing death or other serious physical injury" (Penal Law § 10.00; People v Pena, 50 N.Y.2d 400, 407, cert denied 449 U.S. 1087; People v Baskerville, 60 N.Y.2d 374). In this case, the complainant testified that the defendant threatened to cut her and she concluded that he had a knife because she felt a cold hard object next to her body. Although the complainant did not see the object, viewing the circumstantial evidence in the light most favorable to the People, as we must (see, People v Malizia, 62 N.Y.2d 755, cert denied 469 U.S. 932; People v Kennedy, 47 N.Y.2d 196), and giving the People the benefit of every reasonable inference to be drawn therefrom (People v Lewis, 64 N.Y.2d 1111, 1112), we find that the defendant's guilt of robbery in the first degree was established beyond a reasonable doubt.
We further find the defendant's remaining contentions to be without merit. Thompson, J.P., Weinstein, Rubin and Spatt, JJ., concur.