From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Pena

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 28, 1991
176 A.D.2d 971 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)

Opinion

October 28, 1991

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Cooperman, J.).


Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant contends that the evidence was legally insufficient to support his conviction for burglary in the third degree. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see, People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish that the defendant knowingly entered a building unlawfully with intent to commit a crime therein (see, Penal Law § 140.20). The evidence adduced at the trial revealed that upon seeing the defendant emerge from the basement of the building carrying a suitcase, the superintendent began to question him. The defendant threw the suitcase at the superintendent and fled. The superintendent pursued the defendant and the police apprehended him. The workroom which was located in the basement of the building and had been locked one-half hour before the defendant emerged from the basement, had been broken into and was in a state of disarray. The suitcase contained property which had been in the workroom. Such evidence was legally sufficient to establish a prima facie case as to burglary in the third degree and to enable a trier of fact to find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt (see, People v. King, 61 N.Y.2d 550; People v. Rosario, 158 A.D.2d 629; People v. Griffin, 142 A.D.2d 594; People v. Franklin, 137 A.D.2d 710).

Contrary to the defendant's contention, the prosecution's case did not rest solely on circumstantial evidence. The trial court was correct in refusing to give a circumstantial evidence charge (see, People v. Ruiz, 52 N.Y.2d 929; People v. Marrero, 162 A.D.2d 720; People v. Snyder, 124 A.D.2d 394). The defendant's contention that the court's instruction to the jury with respect to the elements of the crime of burglary was erroneous is unpreserved for appellate review, and we decline to review it in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction (see, People v. Thomas, 50 N.Y.2d 467; People v. Malave, 114 A.D.2d 376). Bracken, J.P., Sullivan, O'Brien and Ritter, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Pena

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 28, 1991
176 A.D.2d 971 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)
Case details for

People v. Pena

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. RAMON PENA, Appellant

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Oct 28, 1991

Citations

176 A.D.2d 971 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)
575 N.Y.S.2d 575

Citing Cases

Venditto v. Doody

He contends that because one of the nonparty witnesses testified that debris was found in the plaintiff's…

People v. Williams

Although "the intent necessary for burglary can be inferred from the circumstances of the entry itself"…