From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Baer

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Jul 11, 1983
96 A.D.2d 717 (N.Y. App. Div. 1983)

Summary

concluding that duplicate room key stolen from hotel manager could not serve as basis for possession of burglar's tools under statute prohibiting use of tools adapted, designed, or commonly used for facilitating larceny

Summary of this case from State v. Hughes

Opinion

July 11, 1983

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Erie County, Marshall, J.

Present — Dillon, P.J., Hancock, Jr., Doerr, Boomer and Moule, JJ.


Judgment unanimously modified and, as modified, affirmed, in accordance with the following memorandum: Defendant appeals from his convictions for burglary, third degree, petit larceny, and possession of burglar's tools arising from an incident in which he allegedly stole a television from a private room in a rooming house. He entered the room not by force but by use of a duplicate room key apparently stolen from the building manager. The key was found on his person when he was arrested. With respect to the first two counts, burglary, third degree, and petit larceny, we reject defendant's argument that the evidence, which was circumstantial, did not "exclude `to a moral certainty' every conclusion other than guilt" ( People v Kennedy, 47 N.Y.2d 196, 202, quoting People v Benzinger, 36 N.Y.2d 29, 32, and People v Cleague, 22 N.Y.2d 363, 365-366). With respect to charge three, possession of burglar's tools, we agree with defendant that the key to the room cannot be a burglar's tool. The only issue is whether the key, innocent in itself and used in its normal manner, is a "tool, instrument or other article adapted, designed or commonly used for committing or facilitating offenses * * * involving larceny by a physical taking" (Penal Law, § 140.35). The key is not adapted or designed for criminal purposes and, as used here, cannot be said to be "commonly used for committing or facilitating offenses * * * involving larceny by a physical taking" (cf. Matter of Charlotte K., 102 Misc.2d 848; see, generally, Matter of Parsons, 108 Misc.2d 738, 739-740; People v Alvarez, 86 Misc.2d 654, 656). Thus, the conviction for possession of burglar's tools is reversed and that count dismissed. There is no merit to defendant's claim that his sentence is excessive.


Summaries of

People v. Baer

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Jul 11, 1983
96 A.D.2d 717 (N.Y. App. Div. 1983)

concluding that duplicate room key stolen from hotel manager could not serve as basis for possession of burglar's tools under statute prohibiting use of tools adapted, designed, or commonly used for facilitating larceny

Summary of this case from State v. Hughes

In People v Baer (96 AD2d 717, 717-718 [4th Dept 1983]), the Court held that a duplicate key found in the defendant's possession, which was neither adapted nor designed for a criminal purpose, "cannot be said to be commonly used for committing or facilitating offenses... involving larceny."

Summary of this case from People v. Banister
Case details for

People v. Baer

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. HAROLD T. BAER…

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

Date published: Jul 11, 1983

Citations

96 A.D.2d 717 (N.Y. App. Div. 1983)

Citing Cases

State v. Warner

New York cases interpreting the statute from which ours derives have examined when an article becomes adapted…

State v. Hughes

The fact that the statute criminalizes possession of tools adapted and designed for cutting through…