People v. Green

New York Court of Appeals

People v. Green

421 N.E.2d 112, 53 N.Y.2d 651, 438 N.Y.S.2d 992, 1981 N.Y. LEXIS 2313

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedMarch 26, 1981

StatusPublished

Cited by22 cases

This text of 421 N.E.2d 112 (People v. Green) 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

People v. Green, 421 N.E.2d 112, 53 N.Y.2d 651, 438 N.Y.S.2d 992, 1981 N.Y. LEXIS 2313 (N.Y. 1981).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be modified, defendant’s conviction for criminal possession of a forged instrument and sentence thereon vacated, and Count I of the indictment dismissed.

While there was evidence in the record to support defendant’s conviction of petit larceny, there is insufficient proof, as a niatter of law, to sustain the jury’s verdict of guilty of criminal possession of a forged instrument. An element of this latter crime is that the defendant have possession of a forged instrument “with knowledge that it is forged” (Penal Law, § 170.25). There was proof that the check was unindorsed when it was stolen from its owner; there was proof that it bore a forged indorsement when defendant delivered it to his accomplice six days later; and the People stipulated that the indorsement was not in defendant’s handwriting. There was no proof, however, that defendant stole the check from its owner, or of how or where it came into his possession (other than that he must have obtained it prior to his delivery of it to his accomplice) . There was no proof as to who had had the check after it was stolen before defendant acquired it or that the indorsement had not already been forged when it came into his hands. Proof of statements made by defendant to his accomplice and earlier to an acquaintance, as well as other evidence, was sufficient to support a finding that defendant knew that the check had been stolen. Any finding that he also knew that it was forged could have been premised on no more than speculation.

We have examined defendant’s other contentions relevant to his conviction for petit larceny and find them to be without merit.

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

Order modified in accordance with the memorandum herein and, as so modified, affirmed.

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 modified, defendant’s conviction for criminal possession of a forged instrument and sentence thereon vacated, and Count I of the indictment dismissed.

While there was evidence in the record to support defendant’s conviction of petit larceny, there is insufficient proof, as a niatter of law, to sustain the jury’s verdict of guilty of criminal possession of a forged instrument. An element of this latter crime is that the defendant have possession of a forged instrument “with knowledge that it is forged” (Penal Law, § 170.25). There was proof that the check was unindorsed when it was stolen from its owner; there was proof that it bore a forged indorsement when defendant delivered it to his accomplice six days later; and the People stipulated that the indorsement was not in defendant’s handwriting. There was no proof, however, that defendant stole the check from its owner, or of how or where it came into his possession (other than that he must have obtained it prior to his delivery of it to his accomplice) . There was no proof as to who had had the check after it was stolen before defendant acquired it or that the indorsement had not already been forged when it came into his hands. Proof of statements made by defendant to his accomplice and earlier to an acquaintance, as well as other evidence, was sufficient to support a finding that defendant knew that the check had been stolen. Any finding that he also knew that it was forged could have been premised on no more than speculation.

We have examined defendant’s other contentions relevant to his conviction for petit larceny and find them to be without merit.

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

Order modified in accordance with the memorandum herein and, as so modified, affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

421 N.E.2d 112, 53 N.Y.2d 651, 438 N.Y.S.2d 992, 1981 N.Y. LEXIS 2313, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-green-ny-1981.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack