From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Burke

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Jan 23, 1987
126 A.D.2d 938 (N.Y. App. Div. 1987)

Opinion

January 23, 1987

Appeal from the Lewis County Court, Parker, J.

Present — Callahan, J.P., Denman, Boomer, Green and Balio, JJ.


Judgment unanimously reversed, on the law, and indictment dismissed. Memorandum: The circumstantial evidence against defendant, including the evidence that she had admitted being present in the car outside the residence while it was burglarized by her alleged accomplices, did not establish beyond a reasonable doubt defendant's participation in the crimes. The proof failed to show that defendant acted with the necessary mental culpability or that she solicited, requested, commanded, importuned, or intentionally aided the others to commit these crimes (Penal Law § 20.00; People v. Perniciaro, 58 N.Y.2d 751, 753). Defendant's mere presence at the scene of the crimes does not establish her intent to commit them (see, People v. La Belle, 18 N.Y.2d 405, 411-413). Moreover, since the proof did not negate the possibility that defendant accompanied the others without foreknowledge of the scheme to commit the burglary, it failed to exclude to a moral certainty every reasonable hypothesis other than guilt (see, People v. Way, 59 N.Y.2d 361; People v. Cleague, 22 N.Y.2d 363; People v. LaBelle, supra).


Summaries of

People v. Burke

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Jan 23, 1987
126 A.D.2d 938 (N.Y. App. Div. 1987)
Case details for

People v. Burke

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. PAULA BURKE, Appellant

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

Date published: Jan 23, 1987

Citations

126 A.D.2d 938 (N.Y. App. Div. 1987)

Citing Cases

People v. Walk

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People (People v. Kennedy, 47 N.Y.2d 196, 203, rearg…

People v. Durham

Although there was no direct evidence of defendant's entry, there was direct evidence that he was aware of…