People v. Landers

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Landers

66 A.D.2d 987, 411 N.Y.S.2d 783, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14341

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

DecidedDecember 15, 1978

StatusPublished

This text of 66 A.D.2d 987 (People v. Landers) 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

People v. Landers, 66 A.D.2d 987, 411 N.Y.S.2d 783, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14341 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1978).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment unanimously reversed, on the law and facts, and indictment dismissed. Memorandum: The evidence in this case is insufficient as a matter of law to establish the crime of grand larceny in the second degree. The circumstantial facts from which the prosecution sought to prove the defendant’s larcenous intent (Penal Law, § 155.05, subd 1) were not established with certainty and, as offered, are as consistent with the hypothesis of defendant’s innocence as they are with that of his guilt (see People v Montanez, 41 NY2d 53, 57, and cases cited therein). The only rational explanation for the verdict may be found in the improper admission into evidence, over objection, of the NYSIIS record of defendant’s criminal history, coupled with the jury’s application of the court’s charge on the affirmative defense to larceny (Penal Law, § 155.15, subd 1) which tended to shift the burden of proof to the defendant on the critical issue of intent. (Appeal from judgment of Yates County Court—grand larceny, second degree.) Present—Moule, J. P., Cardamone, Simons, Dillon and Hancock, Jr., JJ.

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

Judgment unanimously reversed, on the law and facts, and indictment dismissed. Memorandum: The evidence in this case is insufficient as a matter of law to establish the crime of grand larceny in the second degree. The circumstantial facts from which the prosecution sought to prove the defendant’s larcenous intent (Penal Law, § 155.05, subd 1) were not established with certainty and, as offered, are as consistent with the hypothesis of defendant’s innocence as they are with that of his guilt (see People v Montanez, 41 NY2d 53, 57, and cases cited therein). The only rational explanation for the verdict may be found in the improper admission into evidence, over objection, of the NYSIIS record of defendant’s criminal history, coupled with the jury’s application of the court’s charge on the affirmative defense to larceny (Penal Law, § 155.15, subd 1) which tended to shift the burden of proof to the defendant on the critical issue of intent. (Appeal from judgment of Yates County Court—grand larceny, second degree.) Present—Moule, J. P., Cardamone, Simons, Dillon and Hancock, Jr., JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

66 A.D.2d 987, 411 N.Y.S.2d 783, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14341, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-landers-nyappdiv-1978.