Articles Posted in Petite Larceny

Published on:

An appeal was made by the defendant from a judgment of the Queens County Supreme Court convicting her of forgery in the second degree, grand larceny in the fourth degree, criminal possession of stolen property in the fourth degree, and criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

The trial court, after conducting a Molineux hearing, did not improvidently exercise its discretion in permitting the prosecutor to present at trial evidence of the defendant’s prior conviction of attempted forgery. The conviction was clearly probative of the defendant’s intent to knowingly forge the instruments in this case. Further, the trial court properly weighed the relevant factors of probative value and prejudicial effect in reaching its determination.

Similarly, the trial court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in permitting the People to cross-examine the defendant, in the event that she testified, as to her prior convictions of attempted forgery, petit larceny and attempted petit larceny, as well as the underlying facts of the attempted forgery conviction. A defendant may be cross-examined as to the existence of prior criminal acts where the nature of such conduct or the circumstances in which it occurred, bear logically and reasonably on the issue of credibility. Further, the commission of crimes involving individual dishonesty, such as theft, fraud and forgery demonstrate the defendant’s willingness to place [her] own interests ahead of the interests of society, thereby impacting directly upon the issue of the defendant’s credibility. The mere fact that the prior crime is similar to the crime charged is not a basis for the preclusion of the evidence since a defendant who specializes in one particular type of crime is not shielded from cross-examination thereon. In the present case, it is clear that the defendant’s convictions of crimes involving individual dishonesty were highly probative on the issue of her credibility. Moreover, inasmuch as the trial court carefully weighed the probative value of the evidence against the potential for prejudice to the defendant, we discern no basis for disturbing its compromise ruling.

Continue reading

Published on:

A burglary and stealing of a revolver allegedly took place while the owner of the house was away from home while attending her husband’s funeral. The revolver was the only item stolen in the house. A man was arrested subsequently at which time he allegedly stated that he had bought the gun from another person. The possession of the revolver by the man is the only connection between the man and the crimes. Sources revealed that there is no proof that the man ever knew the owner of the gun, or knew that the owner had died, or knew that the person had a gun.

Consequently, the decision convicting the man for the crimes of burglary, larceny and possession of a loaded revolver and burglar’s instruments is affirmed

Another related appeal is also filed by the offender from the decision convicting him of burglary in the second degree, petit larceny, and criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Continue reading

Published on:

By petition filed pursuant to Family Court Act §310.1, respondent is alleged to have committed acts which, were she an adult, would constitute the crimes of Robbery in the Second Degree, Grand Larceny in the Fourth Degree, Petit larceny and Criminal Possession of Stolen Property in the Fifth Degree.

A Queens County Criminal attorney said that the Presentment Agency intends to offer a statement she alleges was involuntarily made or obtained in violation of Family Court Act §305.2 by law enforcement personnel, respondent has moved for an order suppressing the introduction of her statement at the prospective fact-finding hearing.

Upon a motion to suppress an out-of-court statement as involuntarily made, or as obtained in violation of Family Court Act §305.2, the Presentment Agency bears the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the statement was voluntarily made and lawfully obtained.

Published on:

These are two unrelated proceedings joined for the purpose of this decision due to common questions of law and common prayers for relief under Section 240.70 of the Criminal Procedure Law. This decision is one of first impression dealing with the permissible sanctions for failure to comply with a Demand for Discovery under revised Article 240 of the Criminal Procedure Law (effective January 1, 1980).

A Queens Grand Larceny Lawyer said that, this case is a December 18, 1979 arrest for Grand Larceny in the Third Degree (Sec. 155.30 Penal Law), Criminal Possession of Stolen Property in the Second Degree (Sec. 165.45 Penal Law), Criminal Mischief in the Fourth Degree (Sec. 145.00 Penal Law) and Unauthorized Use of a Motor Vehicle (Sec. 165.05 Penal Law). The defendant was arraigned on a felony complaint for the above offenses on December 18, 1979. On January 31, 1980, the charges were reduced to Petit Larceny (Sec. 155.25 Penal Law) and Criminal Possession of Stolen Property in the Third Degree (Sec. 165.40 Penal Law), with the other two misdemeanor charges remaining. The defendant was arraigned on the reduced charges, and at that point was being prosecuted by information (a misdemeanor complaint coupled with a supporting deposition executed pursuant to Sec. 100.20 of the C.P.L. resulting in a conversion to an information under Sec. 170.65(1) of the C.P.L. 1). The case was a proper one for a demand for discovery since it was a prosecution by information as required by Sec. 240.20(1). 2

A Queens Petit Larceny Lawyer said that, at the initial arraignment and until March 24, 1980, the defendant was represented by the office of a Legal Aid Society. On the latter date, as a result of an application by the legal aid’s office, an attorney was assigned pursuant to Section 18-B of the County Law. Said attorney has made the instant motion, based upon the following chronology.

Continue reading

Published on:

On the evening, the defendant and three of his associates were engaged in a business transaction on a busy street in Queens County. The business being conducted was the illegal sale of cocaine and the purported buyer was an undercover police officer. Arrested shortly after the sale by a police field team, the defendant was found to be in possession of ten dollars of pre-recorded buy money and two additional packets of cocaine.

A Queens County Criminal lawyer said that the defendant was charged with the crime of Criminal Sale of a Controlled Substance in the Third Degree, a “B” felony which then carried a maximum indeterminate prison term of 8 -25 years. However, due to successful pre-trial plea negotiations undertaken by his attorney, the defendant, in February 1991, was offered and then accepted a highly favorable plea bargain: the defendant pled guilty to the lesser included offense of Attempted Criminal Sale of a Controlled Substance in the Third Degree and was promised a jail sentence of only six months, together with five years of probation.

In May 1991, the defendant was sentenced in accordance with the plea. Thereafter, a Violation of Probation was filed against the defendant by the Dept. Of Probation; due to the defendant’s subsequent non-appearance in court, a bench warrant was issued. In July 1993, the defendant was returned on the warrant, and thereafter, the defendant pled guilty to the Violation of Probation. The defendant’s probation was revoked and resentenced the defendant to a definite sentence of one year.

Continue reading

Published on:

A Queens Petit Larceny Lawyer said that, the defendant is charged with one count of petit larceny (Penal Law §155.25) and one count of criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree (Penal Law §165.40). The defendant has moved to suppress statements on the ground that they were involuntarily made. This court conducted a Huntley hearing on December 18, 2006. At the hearing, Police Officer testified on behalf of the People. The defendant did not testify nor present any witnesses.

A Queens Criminal Lawyer said that, the Police Officer is employed by the New York City Police Department and has been with the Police Department for five years. During this time period, the officer has made nearly 100 arrests and about half of these has been for petit larcenies. He is assigned to the 112th Precinct. On November 30, 2006, the officer was on patrol, in uniform and with a partner, another Police Officer. The officers were in marked car. At about 8:46 PM, the officer received a radio run for a 10-12 which means that a security guard is holding someone. The officers went to a Home Depot located at 75-09 Woodhaven Boulevard in Queens County. The trip took four minutes. They proceeded to the security office, in the rear of the store and were met by two security guards, one individual, and the defendant. The officer described the office as small and being about 4 feet by 8 feet. The defendant was seated in a swivel chair with his hands down behind him. The two security guards were on the defendant’s left completing their paperwork.

A Queens Shoplifting Lawyer said that, the Police Officer asked the individual what happened and he told the officer that he was walking the floor inside the store and observed the defendant remove an item, a MP3 player, from the shelf, place it in his pants pocket and proceed to walk outside the store. Police Officer then asked the defendant what happened. The defendant shook his head and said “I messed up. I should have paid for it.” The officer explained that he was still investigating to determine if a robbery crime had been committed and to ensure that the defendant had no receipt for the merchandise. The officer did not issue Miranda warnings to the defendant.

Continue reading

Published on:

A Queens Criminal Lawyer said that, the issue relates to the remedy to be imposed for the improper joinder of counts in an indictment. Defendant moves to dismiss the indictment as a result of the misjoinder of certain counts, namely, the murder charge, which occurred December 30, 1991, and the unrelated charge for possession of a controlled substance on April 23, 1992, when he was arrested. In opposition, the People claim that, even if there was a misjoinder, the proper remedy is a severance or dismissal of the additional count, not dismissal of the indictment.

A Queens Grand Larceny Lawyer said that, defendant is charged, inter alia, with Murder in the Second Degree, in that, on December 30, 1991, he allegedly shot the victims with a pistol, thereby causing their deaths. On April 23, 1992, at the time of his arrest, defendant was found to be in possession of a small quantity of cocaine. This possession is the basis of the ninth count of the indictment, a misdemeanor for criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree. Defendant claims that this count was improperly included in the indictment with the remaining counts, all of which relate to the homicide charges, and that this misjoinder necessitates dismissal of the indictment.

The issue in this case is whether there has been an improper joinder of counts in an indictment on the defendant’s case.

Continue reading

Published on:

In the first case, a juvenile delinquency proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 3, the appeal is from an order of disposition of the Family Court, Kings County, which, upon a fact-finding order of the same court, made after a hearing, finding that the appellant had committed acts which, if committed by an adult, would have constituted the crimes of criminal possession of stolen property in the fourth degree, criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree, grand larceny in the fourth degree, petit larceny, unauthorized use of a vehicle in the third degree, and criminal mischief in the fourth degree, adjudged him to be a juvenile delinquent and placed him on probation for a period of 12 months.

A Kings County Grand Larceny attorney said that the appellant contends that the evidence presented at the fact-finding hearing, which established that he was a passenger in the back seat of a stolen automobile, was legally insufficient to establish that he committed acts, which, if committed by an adult, would have constituted the crimes of criminal possession of stolen property in the fourth degree, criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree, grand larceny in the fourth degree, petit larceny, and criminal mischief in the fourth degree.

The Court agrees. As defined by the Penal Law, the term “possess” means “to have physical possession or otherwise to exercise dominion or control over tangible property”. The record is devoid of any evidence that the appellant exercised “dominion or control” over the stolen automobile, and his mere presence as a passenger in the vehicle “cannot be equated with his possession thereof”. Further, in the absence of evidence that the appellant “possessed” the subject automobile, the inference of guilt arising from the unexplained or falsely-explained possession of recently stolen property is not applicable, and the finding that the appellant committed the offenses of criminal possession of stolen property in the fourth degree, criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree, grand larceny in the fourth degree, and petit larceny cannot be sustained. Moreover, while the stolen automobile was extensively damaged, the circumstantial evidence adduced at the fact-finding hearing was insufficient to establish that the appellant was the individual who damaged the vehicle, or that he acted in concert with the individual who damaged the vehicle. Accordingly, we vacate the Family Court’s finding that the appellant committed the offense of criminal mischief in the fourth degree.

Continue reading

Published on:

A woman is charged with two counts of petit larceny but she seeks to dismiss the complaint. She asserts that the complaint is facially deficient. But, the complainant filed a response asserting that the charges are sufficiently supported.

The complainant asserts, and the woman does not deny, that the woman was present at the home of the complainant when the incident of stealing happened.

The initial complaint asserts that the complainant left her wallet, containing a debit card, inside her bedroom while the woman was taking care of the complainant’s paralyzed husband and that when the complainant returned home, the Credit card was missing from her wallet.

Published on:

Defendant was arrested in January 2002 and charged with four counts of petit larceny. On said date, defendant was arraigned and pleaded not guilty. After a discussion with counsel, the court granted defendant leave to serve an omnibus motion.

According to a Bronx County Criminal lawyer, in his omnibus motion, defendant moves for, among other things, an order dismissing the information. Specifically, the defendant contends that the information does not meet the requirements of CPL 100.40 and is thus facially insufficient. The motion was not served and filed until April 2002.

The factual part of the information alleges in substance that defendant made application for and attended the Westchester County Master/Special Electrician’s Licensing Examination on several dates. Further, that following his arrival and while present to purportedly take the examination on said dates, defendant removed several pages from the test booklet, secreted them on his person, and then departed from the examination location. Lastly, that defendant’s conduct was all without the permission or consent of the owner.

Continue reading