From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Davila

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Mar 24, 1992
181 A.D.2d 582 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)

Opinion

March 24, 1992

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Bronx County (Richard Price, J.).


At 4:20 A.M., two police officers, observed defendant removing the change from a cash register of a dry cleaning store. Except for a broken gate leading to the basement area, the store was otherwise closed. Defendant was eventually apprehended in the basement of the store, with $21.90 in change on his person; other items were stacked near the broken gate.

In view of the overwhelming evidence of guilt, including not only circumstantial evidence of an unlawful entry (a broken gate) and an intent to take property (items stacked up near where defendant had entered), but also the police officers' actual observation of defendant taking change from the cash register, under no rational view of the evidence could it be said that defendant's intent to commit the crime was an afterthought to his unlawful entry. Thus, any unpreserved error in the court's charge relating to "unlawful remaining" (see, People v Gaines, 74 N.Y.2d 358) would not warrant reversal (People v Santana, 172 A.D.2d 299, lv denied 77 N.Y.2d 1000).

Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Wallach, Kassal and Rubin, JJ.


Summaries of

People v. Davila

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Mar 24, 1992
181 A.D.2d 582 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)
Case details for

People v. Davila

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. MARIO DAVILA, Appellant

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

Date published: Mar 24, 1992

Citations

181 A.D.2d 582 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)
582 N.Y.S.2d 100

Citing Cases

People v. Mestres

However, since the defense counsel never objected to the charge, this contention is unpreserved for appellate…

People v. Jackson

Since this case involved "unlawful entry", and not "unlawful remaining", the court erred by denying…