People v. Arias

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Arias

270 A.D.2d 354, 704 N.Y.S.2d 874, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2672

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided March 13, 2000·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Orgera, J.), rendered June 12, 1997, convicting him of burglary in the second degree and criminal mischief in the fourth degree, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Mere presence at the scene of a crime cannot render a person liable as an accessory for the underlying criminal conduct (see, People v Cabey, 85 NY2d 417, 421; cf., Matter of Carmelo N., 228 AD2d 682; Matter of John G., 118 AD2d 646). However, the evidence elicited at trial was sufficient to establish that the defendant was acting as a lookout for and accomplice of two other individuals who were seen entering the residence of the complaining witness (see, People v Wooten, 214 AD2d 596; cf., Matter of Carmelo N., supra, at 682). Thus, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see, People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Ritter, J. P., Santucci, Thompson and McGinity, JJ., concur.

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

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Orgera, J.), rendered June 12, 1997, convicting him of burglary in the second degree and criminal mischief in the fourth degree, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Mere presence at the scene of a crime cannot render a person liable as an accessory for the underlying criminal conduct (see, People v Cabey, 85 NY2d 417, 421; cf., Matter of Carmelo N., 228 AD2d 682; Matter of John G., 118 AD2d 646). However, the evidence elicited at trial was sufficient to establish that the defendant was acting as a lookout for and accomplice of two other individuals who were seen entering the residence of the complaining witness (see, People v Wooten, 214 AD2d 596; cf., Matter of Carmelo N., supra, at 682). Thus, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see, People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Ritter, J. P., Santucci, Thompson and McGinity, JJ., concur.

People v. Arias, 270 A.D.2d 354, 704 N.Y.S.2d 874, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2672 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

270 A.D.2d 354 (People v. Arias) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related