People v. Mercado

4 Citing cases

  1. Aaron v. Kelly

    65 F. Supp. 2d 183 (S.D.N.Y. 1999)

    In People v. Haney, 162 A.D.2d at 614, 556 N.Y.S.2d at 940, the court found sufficient evidence of display although the victim "stated on cross-examination that he had not `decided' that the object displayed actually `looked like' a gun". See also People v. Taylor, 203 A.D.2d at 77, 610 N.Y.S.2d at 31 (bulge displayed "could have been explained otherwise" than as a gun); People v. Mercado, 148 A.D.2d 365, 366, 539 N.Y.S.2d 323, 324 (1st Dep't 1989) (victim "thought defendant had a weapon"). In enacting the law in question the New York legislature was responding to "the additional fear suffered by a robbery victim.

  2. People v. Caple

    248 A.D.2d 273 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)

    The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of evidence. We see no reason to disturb the jury's credibility determination that the complainant, notwithstanding his offering of some resistance to the robbery, subjectively believed ( see, People v. Baskerville, 60 N.Y.2d 374, 380) the codefendant to be armed with a pistol aimed through his pocket ( see, People v. Mercado, 148 A.D.2d 365, 366, lv denied 73 N.Y.2d 1018). We have reviewed defendant's remaining arguments and find them to be without merit.

  3. People v. Thompson

    176 A.D.2d 138 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)   Cited 2 times

    As the three men watched, defendant went behind a car, fished in his bike pack, and removed an object with which he threatened to "pop" the complainant, at which point the complainant fled. Consistent with the requirements of People v. Baskerville ( 60 N.Y.2d 374), the evidence showed that the defendant consciously displayed an object that could reasonably be perceived as a firearm (see also, People v. Mercado, 148 A.D.2d 365, lv denied 73 N.Y.2d 1018). Further, the participation of the unidentified co-actor with the baseball bat was unequivocally intended to aid the defendant in stealing the camera from the complainant, and in fact accomplished that result.

  4. People v. Haney

    162 A.D.2d 613 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)   Cited 13 times
    Upholding conviction for first-degree robbery when the defendant put his hand in his pocket, gestured in a manner that caused the victim to think that defendant had a gun, and said, "don't let me hurt you"

    Although there were certain inconsistencies in the victim's testimony with regard to his perception of the defendant's hand gesture, the clear import of the victim's testimony was that he feared that the defendant may have had a gun secreted in his pocket. Moreover, a contrary conclusion is not required because the complainant stated on cross-examination that he had not "decided" that the object displayed actually "looked like" a gun (People v. Bynum, 125 A.D.2d 207, 209, affd 70 N.Y.2d 858; People v. Mercado, 148 A.D.2d 365, 366). As the Court of Appeals has recently noted, "an object can be `displayed' without actually being seen by the victim even in outline" (see, People v. Lopez, 73 N.Y.2d 214, 222). Rather, "[a]ll that is required is that the defendant, by his actions, consciously manifest the presence of an object to the victim in such a way that the victim reasonably perceives that the defendant has a gun" (see, People v. Lopez, supra, at 222; People v. Mercado, supra, at 366; People v. Smith, 142 A.D.2d 619). Notably, "[w]hen these two requirements are met, the actual nature of the object involved in the display is irrelevant" (see, People v. Mercado, supra, at 366).