People v. Santiago
1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10879, 405 N.Y.S.2d 752, 62 A.D.2d 572 (1978)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When an attempt to snatch a purse involves the use of a dangerous environmental force, such as a moving subway train, to overcome a victim's actual or potential resistance, or creates an extreme danger of physical injury, it constitutes 'physical force' sufficient to establish the crime of robbery for purposes of a felony murder conviction.
Facts:
- On the morning of November 30, 1970, Regina Graham left her Brooklyn home to purchase a birthday present.
- Defendant Santana informed his friend Samaniego that he intended to "snatch one on the way uptown," which Samaniego understood to mean snatching a pocketbook.
- Santana and Samaniego boarded a subway train and later changed trains at Nevins Street.
- As the train began to move out of the Nevins Street station, Santana, positioned between cars, reached out and pulled Regina Graham by her pocketbook or coat, causing her to be dragged by the train's momentum.
- Regina Graham's leg became wedged between the moving train and the platform.
- Santana reentered the train car, told Samaniego he had "missed the pocketbook" and that the "lady went down," and then exchanged jackets with Samaniego before exiting the train.
- Regina Graham suffered extensive crushing injuries to her pelvic area and both legs, and died 11 days later as a result of these injuries.
Procedural Posture:
- Defendant Santana was charged with the murder of Regina Graham, with the underlying felony being attempted robbery.
- At trial, the defendant moved to dismiss the indictment, arguing that the People failed to prove he used 'physical force' and therefore could not be guilty of attempted robbery or felony murder.
- The trial court denied the defendant's motion to dismiss, deciding that the question of whether robbery had been proven beyond a reasonable doubt would be submitted to the jury.
- The jury, after being instructed on the elements of robbery, returned a verdict of guilty of felony murder.
- Defendant appealed his conviction to the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court, Second Department.
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 defendant's attempt to snatch a purse from a victim at a subway platform, where the victim is pulled by the defendant's actions and the momentum of a moving train, causing severe injuries and death, constitute the use of 'physical force' sufficient to establish robbery as the predicate felony for felony murder?
Opinions:
Majority - Margett, J.
Yes, the method of purse snatching employed by the defendant in this case constituted the crime of robbery. The court affirmed the conviction, holding that the evidence was sufficient to establish that Regina Graham's death resulted from an attempted robbery. The court concluded that the defendant's modus operandi, involving the use of the moving train's momentum to overcome resistance or creating an extreme danger, constituted "physical force" within the meaning of New York's robbery statute (Penal Law § 160.00). The court distinguished older New York cases that held simple purse snatching without resistance was not robbery, arguing those cases had limited precedential value due to harsh sentencing laws and hypertechnical definitions of force at the time. The court found that there was sufficient evidence that the victim resisted by clinging to her purse, and overcoming this resistance through the train's overwhelming momentum constituted robbery. Furthermore, the court held that even without resistance, the extreme danger created by the defendant's method of pulling a person from a moving train must be classified as an aggravated form of theft constituting robbery, aligning with the purpose of robbery law to protect against injuries resulting from dangerous means of misappropriation. The defendant's actions increased the likelihood of both successful theft and severe physical injury, making the unpredictability of victim resistance irrelevant for penal classification.
Dissenting - Shapiro, J.
No, the proof was not sufficient to establish attempted robbery as the underlying felony for felony murder. Justice Shapiro argued that the undisputed facts revealed no more than an attempted snatch of a pocketbook, which constitutes larceny (a lesser crime) and not robbery. Larceny is not one of the enumerated predicate felonies for a felony murder charge under Penal Law § 125.25. He contended that the moving train did not transform the defendant's conduct into an attempted robbery, asserting that the majority was "making bad law in a hard case." He emphasized that robbery requires the use or threatened use of physical force to prevent or overcome resistance to the taking of property, and in his view, the facts did not demonstrate such force for robbery, but merely a snatch attempt leading to an unfortunate death.
Concurring - Suozzi, J.P., and Hawkins, J.
Justices Suozzi and Hawkins concurred with the majority opinion authored by Justice Margett, supporting its reasoning and conclusion that the defendant's actions constituted robbery.
Analysis:
This case significantly broadens the interpretation of 'physical force' required for robbery, particularly in the context of purse snatching. It signals a shift from a strict, older definition that often required overt victim resistance, towards a more expansive view that considers the inherent danger of the perpetrator's method and the environmental forces employed. Future cases involving dangerous methods of theft, even if resistance is minimal or uncertain, could be prosecuted as robbery or aggravated theft, increasing potential criminal liability. The ruling emphasizes the protective purpose of robbery statutes beyond mere property misappropriation, extending to the prevention of physical harm to victims.
