People v. Landy
Opinion of the Court
The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence. The dangerous instrument element of first-degree burglary under Penal Law § 140.30 (3), as well as the force element of robbery, was established by evidence that, during the commission of the crime, defendant possessed a sharp piece of metal capable of causing injury, and that he displayed it in a manner that conveyed a threat to stab the victims if they did not comply with his demand for money (see People v Carter, 53 NY2d 113, 116 [1981]; People v Pena, 50 NY2d 400, 407-408 [1980], cert denied 449 US 1087 [1981]).
Defendant’s claims regarding the prosecutor’s conduct in cross-examination and summation, and regarding the sufficiency of the court’s jury instructions, are unpreserved and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we also reject them on the merits. Defendant’s pro se speedy trial claim is without merit. Defendant’s remaining pro se claims are unpreserved or otherwise procedurally defective and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. As an alterna
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.