NY appeals court reinstates robbery indictment

Listen to this article

A state appeals court has reinstated an indictment in a robbery case.

A grand jury indicted defendant Kelechi Symns on two counts of first-degree robbery and one count of second-degree robbery for allegedly acting in concert with two other individuals to rob the complainant at gunpoint.

The indictment was based on evidence that a few days prior to the robbery, Symns, who knew the complainant, was told by his two accomplices that they intended to rob the complainant, according to a recent decision from the Appellate Division of state Supreme Court, Second Department.

On the day of the robbery, Symns picked up two accomplices and told them that he planned to meet the victim at a park to smoke marijuana.

One of the accomplices reiterated the plan to rob the complainant and displayed a firearm. Symns the accomplices to a location near the park and dropped them off.

Symns met the victim in the park and hung out in the victim’s car before the two accomplices approached, pointed a firearm at the victim, and forced him out of his car.

The defendant was not forced to the ground, and he “went along with it.”

The accomplices searched the victim’s car and took $3,000 in cash from the center console.

After the accomplices fled, Symns told the victim that he would look for them and drove off.

Symns then picked up the accomplices and dropped them at another location.

Symns did not receive any of the stolen cash and later convinced the victim not to report the robbery to police.

Symns’ attorney filed a motion to dismiss the indictment on the ground that the evidence before the grand jury was legally insufficient.

Suffolk County Court Judge Anthony S. Senft Jr. granted the motion to dismiss the indictment on the ground that the evidence was legally insufficient.

The prosecutor appealed and the Second Department reversed Senft’s ruling.

“A court reviewing the legal sufficiency of an indictment must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the People and determine whether the evidence, if unexplained and uncontradicted, would be legally sufficient to support a verdict of guilt after trial,” according to the Second Department decision.

“In the context of grand jury proceedings, legal sufficiency means prima facie proof of the crimes charged, not proof beyond a reasonable doubt,” the court wrote.

“This Court’s inquiry is limited to assessing whether the facts, if proven, and the logical inferences flowing therefrom, supply proof of each element of the charged crimes,” the court wrote.

“When one person engages in conduct which constitutes an offense, another person is criminally liable for such conduct when, acting with the mental culpability required for the commission thereof, he solicits, requests, commands, importunes, or intentionally aids such person to engage in such conduct,” according to Penal Law Section 20.00, the court noted.

“Inasmuch as the statute requires that the accomplice act with the mental culpability required for the commission of the underlying crime, an accomplice must have a shared intent, or community of purpose with the principal,” the court wrote.

“A defendant’s mere presence at the scene of a crime, even with knowledge that the crime is taking place, or mere association with a perpetrator of a crime, is not enough for accessorial liability,” the court wrote.

“Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People, the evidence was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s commission of the charged crimes as an accomplice,” the court ruled.

The defendant’s conduct before, during, and after the commission of the robbery established his shared intent to commit the crime of robbery, according to the decision.

[email protected] / (585) 232-2035