Published on:

Completing Criminal Act Not Necessary if Intent Present


This case involves the People of the State of New York against the defendant Gerard Rollino. The case is being heard in the Criminal Term of the Supreme Court of the State of New York located in Queens County. Judge Irwin Shapiro is hearing the case.

A a New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said at the end of a trial without a jury the defendant was charged through an indictment for second degree Grand Larceny. The defendant has moved for a dismissal in the case. The question before the court is whether or not a would be thief is guilty of attempted or consummated larceny when the property in question is given to the person with the consent of the owner by a pre-arrangement with the police by one of their agents to supply a basis for the criminal prosecution.

Case History

The case at hand stems from a decision that was made in Kings County. In that case the defendant was tried for arson. The defendant had placed a lighted candle in a home next to combustible items with the intent to burn the house down. However, there was no proof in this matter. A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said the court held that completing the criminal act was not required in order to constitute criminality if the attempt was made with criminal intent.

In this case, Edwin Martinez, an employee of the Long Island Drug Company was in contact with the defendant Rollino. Rollino told Martinez that he should steal from his employer as opportunity permitted. The defendant stated that he would pay Martinez for certain products stocked by his company.

Martinez pretended to agree with Rollino, but then called in a private detective agency. The detective agency gave Martinez a package containing drug products with a value of $187. The instructions given to Martinez were to provide the defendant with the drugs pursuant to the plan given by the defendant. Rollino offered Martinez $15 in payment and Martinez accepted. The defendant promised more money next time.

The defendant felt like they were being watched and instructed Martinez to leave the package in the Nash, to lock it and give him the keys and to leave the lot. Both the defendant and Martinez left the area and the defendant returned about a half an hour later. The defendant went to the Nash, unlocked it and picked up the package. After a few moments he replaced the package and walked away. It was at this time that the police moved in and apprehended the defendant.

When questioned, the defendant stated that he was told to pick up the package by a man he knew as James Dunne. A Nassau County Sex Crimes Lawyer said when asked why he did not take the package the defendant stated that he was scared and changed his mind about picking it up.

Case Discussion

The evidence of the case points to the fact that the defendant had the intent to use an employee of the drug company to steal drugs.

In this case the defendant cannot be found guilty for completing the act of larceny because he did not take the drugs from their owner without consent. A Queens Sex Crimes Lawyer said the question remains as to whether he can be found guilty of an attempt to commit larceny.

After reviewing the case the answer seems to be no for the same reasons that the defendant cannot be convicted of larceny. or this reason the court finds in favor of the defendant and the motion to dismiss the charges is granted.

Stephen Bilkis & Associates is happy to discuss your legal issue with you during a free consultation. Contact one of our offices conveniently located throughout New York City to set up an appointment to discuss your case with one of the members of our team.

Contact Information