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

DecidedNovember 20, 1979

StatusPublished

This text of 399 N.E.2d 1152 (In re Thomas M.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

399 N.E.2d 1152, 48 N.Y.2d 828, 424 N.Y.S.2d 131, 1979 N.Y. LEXIS 2464, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-thomas-m-ny-1979.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack