PEOPLE v. HARTSGROVE (2026)

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Michele Rodney, J.), rendered July 23, 2020, as amended July 29, 2020, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of robbery in the first and third degrees, and sentencing her to an aggregate term of five years, unanimously affirmed.

Legally sufficient evidence supported defendant's convictions, and the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v. Danielson, 9 N.Y.3d 342, 348–349, 849 N.Y.S.2d 480, 880 N.E.2d 1 [2007];  see also People v. Baque, 43 N.Y.3d 26, 229 N.Y.S.3d 62, 254 N.E.3d 606 [2024]).  Testimony by store employees established that after the assistant manager asked defendant to turn over the remainder of the food items she had taken and put into her bag, defendant took out a crowbar and raised it to hit the assistant manager before a cashier disarmed her.  Thus, the evidence presented at trial “supports the conclusion that defendant's use of force against store employees was for the purpose, at least in part, of retaining control of the stolen merchandise that was still in [her] possession” (People v. Young, 100 A.D.3d 517, 517, 953 N.Y.S.2d 602 [1st Dept. 2012], lv denied 20 N.Y.3d 1105, 965 N.Y.S.2d 801, 988 N.E.2d 539 [2013];  see Penal Law §§ 160.00, 160.05, 160.15[3]).  Moreover, defendant's “extreme reaction provided an additional basis upon which the jury could infer that [her] actions were intended to ensure her retention of the stolen property” (People v. Gordon, 23 N.Y.3d 643, 653, 992 N.Y.S.2d 700, 16 N.E.3d 1178 [2014];  see People v. McMahon, 279 A.D.2d 272, 272, 719 N.Y.S.2d 23 [1st Dept. 2001], lv denied 96 N.Y.2d 803, 726 N.Y.S.2d 381, 750 N.E.2d 83 [2001]).

The court, following the Criminal Jury Instructions (CJI), properly instructed the jury that defendant was an interested witness (see People v. Blake, 39 A.D.3d 402, 403, 835 N.Y.S.2d 78 [1st Dept. 2007], lv denied 9 N.Y.3d 873, 842 N.Y.S.2d 785, 874 N.E.2d 752 [2007]).  As this Court has repeatedly held, the standard CJI instruction “is properly balanced” (People v. Bowden, 198 A.D.2d 39, 40, 603 N.Y.S.2d 448 [1st Dept. 1993]).  The court's instruction that the jurors could consider whether any witness had an interest in the case's outcome was sufficient to address any hypothetical exposure the People's witnesses faced (see People v. Pizarro, 190 A.D.2d 634, 635, 594 N.Y.S.2d 159 [1st Dept. 1993], lv denied 81 N.Y.2d 1018, 600 N.Y.S.2d 206, 616 N.E.2d 863 [1993]).  In any event, any error was harmless because the evidence of defendant's guilt, including the testimony of the store employees, was overwhelming (see People v. Leo, 249 A.D.2d 251, 252, 673 N.Y.S.2d 70 [1st Dept. 1998], lv denied 92 N.Y.2d 900, 680 N.Y.S.2d 64, 702 N.E.2d 849 [1998]).