In re Carmelo N.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Carmelo N.

228 A.D.2d 682, 646 N.Y.2d 21, 646 N.Y.S.2d 21, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7426

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJune 24, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 228 A.D.2d 682 (In re Carmelo N.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In re Carmelo N., 228 A.D.2d 682, 646 N.Y.2d 21, 646 N.Y.S.2d 21, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7426 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

After a hearing, the appellant was found to have acted as a lookout for a friend who stole a cellular telephone from the complainant’s car after breaking its front passenger-side window with his fist. As a result, the Family Court determined that the appellant was an accomplice and adjudicated him a juvenile delinquent. On appeal, the appellant contends that the evidence was legally insufficient to establish that he acted as an accomplice. We disagree.

A person’s mere presence at the scene of the crime, even with knowledge of its perpetration, cannot render him or her accessorially liable for the underlying criminal conduct (see, People v Strawder, 124 AD2d 758, 759; People v Reyes, 82 AD2d 925). In this case, however, when viewed in the light most favorable to the presentment agency (see, People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620; Matter of Jamal C., 186 AD2d 562, 563), the evidence was legally sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the appellant acted as a lookout for, and therefore as an [683]*683accomplice of, his friend (see, People v Roldan, 211 AD2d 366, affd 88 NY2d 826; People v Wooten, 214 AD2d 596; People v Vallejo, 173 AD2d 880, lv denied 78 NY2d 1015). Further, the Family Court’s determination in this regard was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15 [5]). Rosenblatt, J. P., Sullivan, Copertino, Santucci and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

After a hearing, the appellant was found to have acted as a lookout for a friend who stole a cellular telephone from the complainant’s car after breaking its front passenger-side window with his fist. As a result, the Family Court determined that the appellant was an accomplice and adjudicated him a juvenile delinquent. On appeal, the appellant contends that the evidence was legally insufficient to establish that he acted as an accomplice. We disagree.

A person’s mere presence at the scene of the crime, even with knowledge of its perpetration, cannot render him or her accessorially liable for the underlying criminal conduct (see, People v Strawder, 124 AD2d 758, 759; People v Reyes, 82 AD2d 925). In this case, however, when viewed in the light most favorable to the presentment agency (see, People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620; Matter of Jamal C., 186 AD2d 562, 563), the evidence was legally sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the appellant acted as a lookout for, and therefore as an [683]*683accomplice of, his friend (see, People v Roldan, 211 AD2d 366, affd 88 NY2d 826; People v Wooten, 214 AD2d 596; People v Vallejo, 173 AD2d 880, lv denied 78 NY2d 1015). Further, the Family Court’s determination in this regard was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15 [5]). Rosenblatt, J. P., Sullivan, Copertino, Santucci and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

228 A.D.2d 682, 646 N.Y.2d 21, 646 N.Y.S.2d 21, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7426, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-carmelo-n-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack