People v. Tavares

1 Citing case

  1. People v. Lamont

    113 A.D.3d 1069 (N.Y. App. Div. 2014)   Cited 5 times

    Further, when defendant was taken into custody, he was not found in possession of any items relevant to criminal intent; the police testified that his backpack contained clothing only. In our view, defendant's “robbery conviction may not rest on so deficient an evidentiary foundation” (DeJesus, 123 A.D.2d at 564, 507 N.Y.S.2d 144; cf. People v. Bryant, 36 A.D.3d 517, 518, 828 N.Y.S.2d 360, lv. denied8 N.Y.3d 944, 836 N.Y.S.2d 554, 868 N.E.2d 237; People v. Wilson, 10 A.D.3d 460, 461, 781 N.Y.S.2d 162, lv. denied3 N.Y.3d 743, 786 N.Y.S.2d 822, 820 N.E.2d 301; People v. Tavares, 235 A.D.2d 325, 326, 653 N.Y.S.2d 314; People v. Harris, 191 A.D.2d 643, 643–644, 595 N.Y.S.2d 217, lv. denied81 N.Y.2d 1014, 600 N.Y.S.2d 202, 616 N.E.2d 859). The majority concludes that “there is ‘not a reasonable possibility’ that [defendant] intended to” commit a crime other than robbery because, inter alia, there is no evidence that “defendant or his accomplice knew any of the Wendy's employees” (emphasis added).