Published on:

The evidence was legally insufficient

In two related juvenile delinquency proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 3, the appeals are from (1) a fact-finding order of the Family Court, Queens County, which, after a fact-finding hearing, found that the appellant committed acts which, if committed by an adult, would have constituted the crimes of attempted robbery in the first degree, attempted robbery in the second degree, attempted grand larceny in the fourth degree, and unlawful imprisonment in the second degree , (2) an order of disposition of the same court, which, upon the fact-finding order, adjudged him to be a juvenile delinquent and placed him on probation with the “Probation Department of the County of Queens” for a period of 18 months, (3) a fact-finding order of the same court, which, after a fact-finding hearing, found that the appellant committed acts which, if committed by an adult, would have constituted the crimes of attempted robbery in the first degree, attempted robbery in the second degree, and attempted grand larceny in the fourth degree, and (4) an order of disposition of the same court which, upon the fact-finding order, adjudged him to be a juvenile delinquent and placed him on probation with the “Probation Department of the County of Queens” for a period of 18 months,

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the presentment agency, the Court found that it was legally sufficient to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the appellant committed acts which, if committed by an adult, would have constituted the crimes of attempted robbery in the first degree, attempted robbery in the second degree, and attempted grand larceny in the fourth degree, and attempted criminal robbery in the first degree, attempted robbery in the second degree, attempted grand larceny in the fourth degree, and unlawful imprisonment in the second degree.

Moreover, resolution of issues of credibility, as well as the weight to be accorded to the evidence presented is primarily questions to be determined by the trier of fact, which saw and heard the witnesses. Its determination should be accorded great weight on appeal and should not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record. Upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the findings of fact were not against the weight of the evidence.

In another criminal case, defendant appealed from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County convicting him of grand larceny in the third degree, identity theft in the first degree, attempted grand larceny in the third degree, scheme to defraud in the first degree, and unlawful possession of personal identification information in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

A Queens County Criminal lawyer said that the defendant’s contention that the evidence presented as to the sixth count of the indictment, charging him with attempted grand larceny in the third degree, was legally insufficient to prove that the value of the exceeded $3,000, was not preserved for appellate review.

As the People correctly concede, the evidence was legally insufficient to establish that the stolen property had a value in excess of $3,000, as required to support a conviction of attempted grand larceny in the third degree. Nonetheless, the evidence was legally sufficient to support a conviction of the lesser-included offense of attempted grand larceny in the fourth degree.

Accordingly, we reduce the defendant’s conviction of attempted grand larceny in the third degree to attempted grand larceny in the fourth degree, and vacate the sentence imposed thereon. Since the defendant has already served the maximum permissible sentence for that crime, the matter must be remitted to the Supreme Court, Queens County, for the imposition of a sentence to time served on the conviction of attempted grand larceny in the fourth degree.

The defendant contends that the Supreme Court erred in denying his challenge for cause to a prospective juror who expressed doubt as to her ability to remain impartial if the defendant chose not to testify at trial. However, upon further inquiry, the prospective juror gave unequivocal assurances that she would follow the court’s instructions regarding the presumption of innocence, and that she would not draw any negative inferences from the defendant’s failure to testify. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the defendant’s challenge for cause to this prospective juror.

There are things to be considered in imposing a penalty for the commission of a criminal act. Here in Stephen Bilkis and Associates, our Queens County Criminal attorneys will help you defend your case in court by taking into consideration the circumstances surrounding the commission of a crime. If ever you have been robbed and the robber was apprehended, our Queens County Robbery lawyers will file the necessary complaint in court against these robbers.

Contact Information