Clark v. State

Keith Clark was indicted for committing armed robbery upon a pizza delivery driver. A jury found him guilty of the lesser-included offense of robbery by intimidation. He appeals, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence. Specifically, Clark contends his conviction cannot stand because it was based solely on the testimony of a co-defendant. Because the argument is without merit, we affirm. Viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict,1 the evidence shows that the victim was dispatched to deliver pizza to an apartment unit within the Ridgewood apartment complex. When the victim arrived, however, the apartment’s occupant stated that he had not ordered a pizza. The victim returned to his car, and a group of men wearing red and black clothing, as well as bandanas over their faces, approached him from behind. One man pointed a gun at the victim, demanding money. The victim emptied his pockets and placed the items on top of his car. Several men grabbed the items, which included a cell phone and over $30 cash, and divided the victim’s belongings amongst themselves. As the other men fled, the gunman fired the gun into the ground and left.

The victim reported the robbery to his supervisor, who called the police. While searching the area for suspects, officers went to an apartment complex located across the street from the robbery scene, in the direction the robbers fled. One officer noticed fresh footprints in the mud behind the apartments, as well as marks indicating that someone had slid down a muddy hill next to one of the apartment buildings. Muddy footprints also led to the back door of a particular unit.