People v Reid; People v Riddles
69 NY 2d 469, 508 NE 2d 661 (1987)
Rule of Law:
A defendant's good-faith belief that they have a right to property does not serve as a defense to a robbery charge when the defendant uses force to take that property. The 'claim of right' defense, applicable to larceny, does not extend to crimes involving forcible taking.
Facts:
- Case of Reid: Defendant Edward Reid, while armed with a pistol, approached three men and demanded money he claimed was owed to him from prior drug transactions.
- Two of the men, Taylor and Thompson, gave Reid money.
- While accompanying the third man, Peterson, to his apartment, Reid took a pistol from his stepbrother, Andre McLean, and demanded money McLean was holding for him.
- McLean handed Reid $300, but then rushed at Reid, a shot was fired, and McLean was fatally wounded.
- Case of Riddles: Defendant Walter Riddles claimed that Genevieve Bellamy owed him $25.
- While Bellamy was a passenger in Riddles' car, he observed her counting a large sum of money.
- Riddles then forcibly took $25 from Bellamy to satisfy the debt he believed she owed him.
Procedural Posture:
- Case of Reid: Edward Reid was charged in a trial court and convicted by a jury of robbery in the first degree and criminal possession of a weapon.
- Reid appealed his conviction to the Appellate Division, which is an intermediate appellate court.
- The Appellate Division affirmed the conviction.
- Case of Riddles: Walter Riddles was charged in a trial court and, following a bench trial, was convicted of robbery in the third degree.
- The trial court specifically found that Riddles took the money to satisfy a debt but ruled that his use of force constituted robbery.
- Riddles appealed his conviction to the Appellate Division.
- The Appellate Division affirmed the conviction.
- Both Reid and Riddles were granted leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals, New York's highest court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a good-faith claim of right, which is a defense to larceny, also serve as a defense to robbery when a defendant uses force to recover money allegedly owed?
Opinions:
Majority - Simons, J.
No. A good-faith claim of right is not a defense to robbery. Robbery is defined as forcible larceny, and the use of force introduces a risk of physical and mental harm that distinguishes it from simple theft. The Legislature did not extend the claim-of-right defense, which is available for some forms of larceny, to crimes involving force like robbery or extortion. Strong public policy considerations against encouraging violent self-help dictate that individuals cannot use force to settle property disputes or collect debts. Such forcible conduct is a transgression against the person, not just property, and must be subject to criminal sanction.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies and solidifies New York's stance on the 'claim of right' defense, strictly limiting its application to non-forcible thefts. By drawing a bright line at the use of force, the court prioritizes the prevention of violence and breaches of the peace over a defendant's subjective belief about their right to property. This precedent effectively removes a potential defense for individuals who resort to self-help to collect debts, reinforcing the principle that robbery is fundamentally a crime against the person, not just a property crime. Consequently, future defendants in similar circumstances cannot argue they lacked the requisite 'larcenous intent' for robbery simply because they believed the money was rightfully theirs.
Gunnerbot
AI-powered case assistant
Loaded: People v Reid; People v Riddles (1987)
Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"