Opinion
2014-03-27
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Keith LOPEZ, Defendant–Appellant.
Steven Banks, The Legal Aid Society, New York (Michael C. Taglieri of counsel), for appellant. Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Brian R. Pouliot of counsel), for respondent.
Steven Banks, The Legal Aid Society, New York (Michael C. Taglieri of counsel), for appellant.Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Brian R. Pouliot of counsel), for respondent.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Laura A. Ward, J.), rendered May 8, 2008, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of robbery in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of three to six years, unanimously affirmed.
The court properly declined to submit to the jury the issue of whether a prosecution witness was an accomplice, whose testimony would thus require corroboration ( seeCPL 60.22). The testimony of the victim as well as the surveillance video provided no reasonable basis to find that the witness, who denied any involvement, acted as an accomplice in the robbery ( see People v. Sweet, 78 N.Y.2d 263, 266, 573 N.Y.S.2d 438, 577 N.E.2d 1030 [1991] ). Defendant's theory that the witness acted as a lookout or played some other role in the robbery is both speculative and contradicted by the evidence ( see e.g. People v. Martinez, 59 A.D.3d 361, 874 N.Y.S.2d 80 [1st Dept.2009],lv. denied12 N.Y.3d 917, 884 N.Y.S.2d 698, 912 N.E.2d 1079 [2009] )
In any event, any error in failing to deliver an accomplice corroboration charge was harmless ( see id.). There was ample evidence to meet the standard for corroboration of accomplice testimony ( see People v. Breland, 83 N.Y.2d 286, 293, 609 N.Y.S.2d 571, 631 N.E.2d 577 [1994] ), and there is no reasonable possibility that an accomplice-in-fact charge would have affected the verdict. MOSKOWITZ, J.P., RICHTER, MANZANET–DANIELS, CLARK, KAPNICK, JJ., concur.