From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Hudson

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Jan 12, 2012
91 A.D.3d 489 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012)

Opinion

2012-01-12

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Calvin HUDSON, Defendant–Appellant.

Robert S. Dean, Center for Appellate Litigation, New York (Carl S. Kaplan of counsel), for appellant. Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Sheila L. Bautista of counsel), for respondent.


Robert S. Dean, Center for Appellate Litigation, New York (Carl S. Kaplan of counsel), for appellant. Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Sheila L. Bautista of counsel), for respondent.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Berkman, J.), rendered December 9, 2009, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of robbery in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of five years, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence ( see People v. Danielson, 9 N.Y.3d 342, 348–349, 849 N.Y.S.2d 480, 880 N.E.2d 1 [2007] ). This case escalated from a shoplifting into a robbery when a codefendant used force to retain stolen merchandise. The testimony and surveillance videotape support the inference that defendant physically interfered, or tried to interfere, with the store manager's efforts to recover the property from the codefendant, and that in doing so defendant intentionally participated in the codefendant's use of force.

The court, which instructed the jury that the element of intent may be inferred from circumstances, properly declined to deliver a full circumstantial evidence charge containing language about exclusion of alternative reasonable hypotheses of innocence. No such instruction was necessary, because the case was based on both direct and circumstantial evidence ( see People v. Roldan, 88 N.Y.2d 826, 643 N.Y.S.2d 960, 666 N.E.2d 553 [1996]; People v. Daddona, 81 N.Y.2d 990, 599 N.Y.S.2d 530, 615 N.E.2d 1014 [1993] ). Defendant's guilt was established through direct evidence of his conduct, and the inference of accessorial liability could be drawn from that conduct.

MAZZARELLI, J.P., ANDRIAS, SAXE, FREEDMAN, ROMÁN, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Hudson

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Jan 12, 2012
91 A.D.3d 489 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012)
Case details for

People v. Hudson

Case Details

Full title:The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Calvin HUDSON…

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.

Date published: Jan 12, 2012

Citations

91 A.D.3d 489 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012)
935 N.Y.S.2d 883
2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 127

Citing Cases

People v. Barton

The evidence showed that defendant and his accomplices used force against a store employee in order to retain…