A man was indicted for robbery in the second degree and grand larceny in the third degree. He was acquitted on the robbery charge, found guilty of the count charging grand larceny in the third degree and sentenced to five years probation and a fine of $100.
The criminal charges stemmed from an incident were a woman entered the courtyard together with her small son. As the two were walking toward east, three black youths attack her, knocking her to the ground and grabbed her purse. Her screams attracted the attention of a man, who turned to see three men running. While he could not identify any of the attackers, he came upon man hiding behind a hedge and stood guard over him until the police came.
The effort to escape was observed by the man in his continuous pursuit and he confronted the assailant who recognized him as a former schoolmate. The assailant implored his former schoolmate to let him go, but the latter rejected the request and called the victim.
Prior to the arrival of the police, the man called the woman, telling her that he had one on them. The woman came over, identified man as one of the robbers and left to take the child, who had begun to cry, to her apartment. Stalking was not charged.
Based on records, the eyewitness observations, coupled with the swift apprehension of the assailant, the contemporaneous on the scene identification by the victim, the assailant’s attempt to appeal to his acquaintanceship with the bystander who pursued and apprehended him, all point accurately to assailant’s guilt. Indeed, even the assailant’s defense that he was merely walking home from a store where he bought bananas when he heard shots and jumped into the bushes to avoid involvement, circumstantially aided the case when the victim testified that one of her assailants dropped bananas at the scene which her young child picked up.
The police, who had been alerted by a neighbor with a call of shots fired arrived, searched the man and the assailant and found no weapon. Both of them were then taken into the hallway. Moments later the woman appeared with great emotional stress and identified the assailant.
The assailant denied that he had participated in the purse snatch. He testified that he was returning from a fruit store where he had gone to buy bananas. As he passed the area of the robbery he heard shots. Since on a prior occasion he had been wounded as a bystander to a shootout, he immediately hid behind the hedges.
It is undisputed that the man was facing away from the robbery when it occurred. Only after his attention had been drawn to the scene by the woman’s screams and saw the three men in flight. Nevertheless, both he and the police officer were permitted, without objection, to testify to the woman’s identification of the assailant.
As the trial progressed, sources revealed that the complaining party was determined not to be outdone in the use of anger. Soon, the trial degenerated into a personal dispute between attorneys. The court was unable to control the proceedings. In the face of the persistent conduct the proceedings bore little similarity to a fair trial.
While it would be presumptuous for a minority of a single bench to attempt to set policy for the court, the court consider it appropriate to note that some members of the bench are of the opinion that hereafter egregious conduct of the kind displayed by attorney ought to be referred to the departmental disciplinary committee for appropriate action.
Consequently, the justice ordered to reverse and remand for a new trial.
Because of crisis, even young individuals nowadays are tempted to do things that could hurt other people just to obtain money. If you want to file charges against the people who assaulted you and tried to rob you, you can seek legal assistance from the Bronx County Robbery Lawyer. You can also hire the Bronx County Grand Larceny Attorney at Stephen Bilkis and Associates.