People v. Lathigee

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Lathigee

98 A.D.2d 978, 470 N.Y.S.2d 242, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 21318

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

DecidedDecember 16, 1983

StatusPublished

This text of 98 A.D.2d 978 (People v. Lathigee) 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. Lathigee, 98 A.D.2d 978, 470 N.Y.S.2d 242, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 21318 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1983).

Pincite

Opinion

— Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: On this appeal we are concerned with the sufficiency of the circumstantial evidence of defendant’s guilt and whether it excludes to a moral certainty every other hypothesis but that of guilt. The record discloses that the key link in the chain of circumstantial evidence is proof that the blade of a screwdriver found in defendant’s car was the same size and shape as one of the pry marks on the front door of the burglarized premises, and had on it traces of wood and paint consistent with, and not dissimilar to, the wood and paint of the front door. Absent this evidence, the People’s theory of the sequence of events and defendant’s participation as an accomplice is plausible and consistent with all the established facts, but does not rule out the reasonable hypothesis of innocence. With this proof any hypothesis of innocence is no longer reasonable. (Appeal from judgment of Orleans County Court, Miles, J. — burglary, first degree, and another charge.) Present — Dillon, P. J., Hancock, Jr., Green, O’Donnell and Schnepp, JJ.

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

— Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: On this appeal we are concerned with the sufficiency of the circumstantial evidence of defendant’s guilt and whether it excludes to a moral certainty every other hypothesis but that of guilt. The record discloses that the key link in the chain of circumstantial evidence is proof that the blade of a screwdriver found in defendant’s car was the same size and shape as one of the pry marks on the front door of the burglarized premises, and had on it traces of wood and paint consistent with, and not dissimilar to, the wood and paint of the front door. Absent this evidence, the People’s theory of the sequence of events and defendant’s participation as an accomplice is plausible and consistent with all the established facts, but does not rule out the reasonable hypothesis of innocence. With this proof any hypothesis of innocence is no longer reasonable. (Appeal from judgment of Orleans County Court, Miles, J. — burglary, first degree, and another charge.) Present — Dillon, P. J., Hancock, Jr., Green, O’Donnell and Schnepp, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

98 A.D.2d 978, 470 N.Y.S.2d 242, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 21318, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-lathigee-nyappdiv-1983.