The two cases hereunder involves an appeal on conviction involving the crime of grand larceny.
The first was an appeals by (1) criminal defendant NJ from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County, rendered October 14, 1983, convicting him of grand larceny in the second degree, attempted grand larceny in the second degree, and falsifying business records in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence; and (2) defendant DC from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County, rendered September 16, 1983, convicting her of grand larceny in the second degree and falsifying business records in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Judgments affirmed, and the matters are remitted to the Criminal County Court, Nassau County, for further proceedings pursuant to CPL 460.50 (subd. 5).
On these appeals, defendants contend, inter alia, that they are entitled to dismissal of the indictment against them because, among other things, the record contains insufficient evidence to satisfy the corroboration requirement of CPL 60.50. We disagree.
CPL 60.50 provides that person may not be convicted of any offense solely upon evidence of a confession or admission made by him without additional proof that the offense charged has been committed. In meeting this requirement of additional proof, it is sufficient to show corroborating circumstances which, when considered in connection with the confession are sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt in the minds of the jury beyond a reasonable doubt. While is not enough that the additional proof partially corroborates the truthfulness of the confession confession may, however, be used as a key or clue to the explanation of circumstances, which, when so explained, establish the criminal act. Moreover, it is not necessary that the proof ‘every reasonable hypothesis save that of guilt’the statute is satisfied by the production of some proof, of whatever weight, that a crime was committed by someone.
The People’s proof herein, which consisted of, inter alia, documentary evidence of the invoices of BR, Inc., to its X-ray film supplier, EP X-Ray Company and to Franklin General Hospital, as well as testimony as to the manner in which X-ray film shipments were made from EP to Franklin General Hospital, was sufficient corroborating evidence, together with each defendant’s confession or admissions, to establish the scheme whereby BR, Inc., together with defendants, arranged for the shipment of fewer X-ray films than were ordered and paid for by Franklin General Hospital, which was the basis for the counts of the indictment. As noted in People v. Lipsky: in addition to the confession there is proof of circumstances which, although they may have an innocent construction, are nevertheless calculated to suggest the commission of crime, and for the explanation of which the confession furnishes the key, the case cannot be taken from the jury for a non-compliance with the requirement of.
Accordingly, there was sufficient evidence to support the jury’s findings. We have considered defendants’ other contentions and find them to be without merit.
The second case is an appeal by defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County, rendered April 18, 1989, convicting her of scheme to defraud in the first degree, grand larceny in the second degree (three counts), grand larceny in the third degree (ten counts), and grand larceny in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Contrary to the defendant’s contention, we find that the trial court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying her motion for a severance on the ground that defenses which might be offered by her codefendants would be antagonistic to her defense. The proof against the defendant and her codefendants was virtually identical since all of them were charged with participating in the same scheme to credit card fraud. Furthermore, the ground advanced simply did not constitute good cause to order separate trials.
Nor do we find error in the trial court’s denial, without a hearing, of the defendant’s motion to controvert a search warrant. The affidavit upon which the warrant was issued contained more than enough information to satisfy the court that there was probable cause to believe that the defendants were engaging in conduct which constituted the crimes, among others, of scheme to defraud and grand larceny. The defendant failed to make a preliminary showing that a false statement, made knowingly and intentionally, or with reckless disregard for the truth, was included in the affidavit, and thus no hearing was. We have examined the defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit.
Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed, and the case is remitted to the County Court, Nassau County, for further proceedings pursuant to CPL 460.50(5).
If you have been accused of grand larceny, petit larceny, theft, robbery, burglary and similar crimes, you need an expert counsel to defend you in court. Stephen Bilkis and Associates has experienced Nassau County Grand Larceny Attorneys and Nassau County Criminal Lawyers to competently represent you in court. Visit our offices in New York Metropolitn, including Corona for free legal consultation.