From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Washington

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 15, 1985
110 A.D.2d 797 (N.Y. App. Div. 1985)

Opinion

April 15, 1985

Appeal from the County Court, Nassau County (Lawrence, J.).


Judgment affirmed.

The People proved beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant knowingly possessed 32 pairs of jeans removed from complainant's warehouse in Freeport, Long Island. Defendant contends, however, that there was insufficient proof to establish that he was in possession of stolen property having a value in excess of $250, a necessary prerequisite for conviction of criminal possession of stolen property in the second degree (Penal Law § 165.45). The People established that the jeans in question were purchased for $384 shortly before their theft.

Although the jeans were purchased as samples for display there was credible testimony establishing that had the jeans been sold by complainant they would have been valued in excess of $250. There was clearly sufficient proof, therefore, to sustain the jury's finding that the stolen property was valued at over $250.

There was no error in the court's charge, either with respect to instructions going to the method of assessing value, or in the court's relating the application of law to the facts in the case (CPL 300.10). The trial court specifically recited the manner in which the value of the property was to be ascertained and sufficiently related the facts to the law to be applied. The trial court did not reduce its charge to the jury to a "bare bones" reading of the law ( People v. Ford, 100 A.D.2d 941; People v. Gaines, 80 A.D.2d 561). Moreover, the critical issue on appellate review "is whether the deficiency, if any, was such as to deny * * * defendant a fair trial" ( People v. Culhane, 45 N.Y.2d 757, 758, cert denied 439 U.S. 1047). The charge was adequate and did not deprive defendant of a fair trial.

Finally, although the People admit that they violated Penal Law § 450.10 by returning the stolen property to complainant without court order or notice to defendant, we conclude that the error was neither prejudicial nor committed in bad faith ( People v Angelo, 93 A.D.2d 264). In any event, defendant failed to raise any objection, prior to appeal, based upon the People's failure to produce the jeans. Titone, J.P., Thompson, Bracken and Rubin, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Washington

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 15, 1985
110 A.D.2d 797 (N.Y. App. Div. 1985)
Case details for

People v. Washington

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. BERNARD WASHINGTON…

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

Date published: Apr 15, 1985

Citations

110 A.D.2d 797 (N.Y. App. Div. 1985)

Citing Cases

People v. Yates

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed. Contrary to the defendant's contention, we find that the People…

People v. Bowman

While the record discloses that the People failed to comply with Penal Law § 450.10, such noncompliance was…