The New York Court of Appeals issued an opinion in *People v. Smith* (2025 NY Slip Op 07082) on December 18, 2025, addressing the standards for affirmative defenses in first-degree robbery cases involving the display of apparent firearms. The case centers on the distinction between first-degree and second-degree robbery charges under New York Penal Law when defendants claim displayed objects were not actual loaded weapons.
The case arose from a 2017 armed robbery at a Rochester hair salon. A masked man entered the establishment and demanded money while holding what appeared to be a gun to an employee's head as she retrieved cash from a safe. Two customers also testified that the object appeared to be a firearm, though one customer with a concealed carry permit could not definitively determine whether it was a "play gun" or a "Glock nine millimeter." After obtaining the cash, the perpetrator fled the scene.
Under New York Penal Law Section 160.15(4), first-degree robbery occurs when a person forcibly steals property and "displays what appears to be a pistol, revolver, rifle, shotgun, machine gun or other firearm" during the crime or immediate flight. This is distinguished from second-degree robbery under Penal Law Section 160.10(2)(b), which covers the same conduct but carries lesser penalties.
The key legal issue in *Smith* involved the affirmative defense provision in Penal Law Section 160.15(4), which allows defendants to argue that the displayed object "was not a loaded weapon from which a shot, readily capable of producing death or other serious physical injury, could be discharged." If successfully proven, this defense can reduce a first-degree robbery charge to second-degree robbery.
Defendant Mark A. Smith, represented by attorney Stephanie M. Stare, requested that the trial court instruct the jury on this affirmative defense. However, County Court denied the request, and Smith appealed the decision to the Court of Appeals.
Writing for the Court of Appeals, Justice Troutman affirmed the lower court's decision, holding that County Court properly denied defendant's request for the affirmative defense jury instruction. The court's analysis focused on the evidentiary requirements necessary to warrant such an instruction and the burden of proof that defendants must meet.
The opinion clarifies that courts must carefully evaluate whether sufficient evidence exists to support an affirmative defense instruction. This requirement ensures that defendants cannot simply claim objects were fake or unloaded without presenting adequate evidence to support such claims before a jury.
The decision has significant implications for robbery prosecutions throughout New York State. Prosecutors handling cases involving apparent firearms can point to *Smith* when arguing against affirmative defense instructions where defendants fail to present sufficient evidence that displayed objects were not loaded weapons capable of causing serious injury or death.
For criminal defense attorneys, the ruling emphasizes the importance of developing concrete evidence to support affirmative defenses rather than relying solely on witness uncertainty or speculation about whether displayed objects were real firearms. The case demonstrates that general witness testimony about objects appearing to be guns, even when combined with some uncertainty from observers, may not be sufficient to warrant jury instructions on affirmative defenses.
The distinction between first-degree and second-degree robbery carries substantial consequences for defendants. First-degree robbery is a Class B felony in New York, while second-degree robbery is a Class C felony, resulting in different sentencing ranges and collateral consequences.
Legal practitioners note that the *Smith* decision provides important guidance on the evidentiary standards courts should apply when evaluating requests for affirmative defense instructions in weapons-related cases. The ruling suggests courts should require more than mere speculation or witness uncertainty about the nature of displayed objects.
The case also highlights the challenges faced by witnesses in identifying firearms during high-stress situations like armed robberies. Even trained individuals with firearms experience may struggle to definitively identify weapons under such circumstances, as demonstrated by the concealed carry permit holder's testimony in this case.
The New York State Law Reporting Bureau published the opinion pursuant to Judiciary Law Section 431, though it remains uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports. This procedural note indicates the opinion may undergo minor changes before final publication, though the core legal holdings are expected to remain unchanged.
The decision reinforces existing legal principles while providing clearer guidance for trial courts facing similar situations. By affirming the County Court's denial of the affirmative defense instruction, the Court of Appeals has established precedent that may influence how similar cases are handled throughout the state's court system.
Legal observers expect the *Smith* decision to be cited in future robbery prosecutions involving questions about whether displayedobjects were actual loaded weapons. The ruling provides prosecutors and defense attorneys with clearer parameters for understanding when affirmative defense instructions are appropriate in first-degree robbery cases.