In re Thomas M.

New York Court of Appeals

In re Thomas M.

399 N.E.2d 1152, 48 N.Y.2d 828, 424 N.Y.S.2d 131, 1979 N.Y. LEXIS 2464

New York Court of Appeals·Decided November 20, 1979·Published

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed and the petition charging appellant with juvenile delinquency should be dismissed.

[829]*829Unlike the defendant in People v Wachowicz (22 NY2d 369), upon which the Appellate Division majority relied, appellant was in possession of no burglar’s tools. The only evidence to connect appellant circumstantially to the attempted break-in is his flight and the fact, which the Family Court Judge impliedly found, that appellant lied about his whereabouts at the time of the attempted break-in. As to the first, however, the flight could equally well be attributed to appellant’s status as a trespasser (People v Irvin, 43 NY2d 704; cf People v Leyra, 1 NY2d 199, 209). As to the latter, appellant’s denial of presence can hardly be equated with proof, beyond a reasonable doubt, of attempted burglary.

Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Meyer concur.

Order reversed, without costs, and the petition dismissed in a memorandum.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed and the petition charging appellant with juvenile delinquency should be dismissed.

[829]*829Unlike the defendant in People v Wachowicz (22 NY2d 369), upon which the Appellate Division majority relied, appellant was in possession of no burglar’s tools. The only evidence to connect appellant circumstantially to the attempted break-in is his flight and the fact, which the Family Court Judge impliedly found, that appellant lied about his whereabouts at the time of the attempted break-in. As to the first, however, the flight could equally well be attributed to appellant’s status as a trespasser (People v Irvin, 43 NY2d 704; cf People v Leyra, 1 NY2d 199, 209). As to the latter, appellant’s denial of presence can hardly be equated with proof, beyond a reasonable doubt, of attempted burglary.

Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Meyer concur.

Order reversed, without costs, and the petition dismissed in a memorandum.

In re Thomas M., 399 N.E.2d 1152, 48 N.Y.2d 828, 424 N.Y.S.2d 131, 1979 N.Y. LEXIS 2464 (N.Y. 1979).

Pincite

399 N.E.2d 1152 (In re Thomas M.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related