People v. Tucker

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Tucker

130 A.D.2d 605, 515 N.Y.S.2d 532, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 46619

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided May 11, 1987·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Greenberg, J.), rendered December 9, 1985, convicting him of grand larceny in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant, having observed a larceny while it was in progress and having assisted the perpetrator' to complete that larceny, is liable as an accomplice to the larceny (see, People v Robinson, 60 NY2d 982, 984). Moreover, the jury could reasonably have inferred from the defendant’s act of raising a nightstick in a threatening manner, after the principal took the property from the victim, that the defendant possessed the requisite mental culpability for the crime charged (see, People v Barnes, 50 NY2d 375, 381; People v Bracey, 41 NY2d 296, 301; Penal Law § 20.00).

The defendant’s remaining contention is unpreserved for review (see, People v Whalen, 59 NY2d 273, 279-280; People v Thomas, 50 NY2d 467), and is, in any case, without merit (see, People v Barnes, supra, at 380). Lawrence, J. P., Eiber, Sullivan and Harwood, 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, Kings County (Greenberg, J.), rendered December 9, 1985, convicting him of grand larceny in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant, having observed a larceny while it was in progress and having assisted the perpetrator' to complete that larceny, is liable as an accomplice to the larceny (see, People v Robinson, 60 NY2d 982, 984). Moreover, the jury could reasonably have inferred from the defendant’s act of raising a nightstick in a threatening manner, after the principal took the property from the victim, that the defendant possessed the requisite mental culpability for the crime charged (see, People v Barnes, 50 NY2d 375, 381; People v Bracey, 41 NY2d 296, 301; Penal Law § 20.00).

The defendant’s remaining contention is unpreserved for review (see, People v Whalen, 59 NY2d 273, 279-280; People v Thomas, 50 NY2d 467), and is, in any case, without merit (see, People v Barnes, supra, at 380). Lawrence, J. P., Eiber, Sullivan and Harwood, JJ., concur.

People v. Tucker, 130 A.D.2d 605, 515 N.Y.S.2d 532, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 46619 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

130 A.D.2d 605 (People v. Tucker) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related