People v. Mejia
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
1Opinion of the Court
*756The defendant contends that the People failed to prove his guilt of first and second degree robbery beyond a reasonable doubt because “there was no persuasive evidence that [he] intended” to commit a forcible theft. We disagree.
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt under an accomplice theory of liability beyond a reasonable doubt (see Penal Law §§ 20.00, 160.10 [1]; § 160.15 [3]). Intent can be established from an act itself or from the conduct of an…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- People v. ContesNew York Court of Appeals · 1983
- People v. BaldiNew York Court of Appeals · 1981
- People v. BeneventoNew York Court of Appeals · 1998
- People v. . GaimariNew York Court of Appeals · 1903
- People v. RobinsonNew York Court of Appeals · 1983
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by14 opinions
- People v. RamosAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2010
- People v. WitherspoonAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2002
- People v. HooksAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2017
- People v. FieldsAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2013
- People v. MathisAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2009
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.