From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Giannizzero

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 21, 1994
209 A.D.2d 635 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)

Opinion

November 21, 1994

Appeal from the County Court, Suffolk County (Cacciabaudo, J.).


Ordered that the judgments are affirmed.

The defendant, after being evicted from his rented apartment, returned and, without permission, removed a door and did damage to the apartment. At his trial on the charge of burglary in the second degree under Indictment No. 1218/90, the defendant claimed that he thought he had a right to take the door and, therefore, the People failed to prove the element of intent. On appeal, the defendant argues, inter alia, that the trial court should have granted his request for a trial order of dismissal at the close of the People's case. We disagree. The motion was properly denied since, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, a rational jury could have found that the elements of burglary in the second degree were established beyond a reasonable doubt (see, People v Smith, 79 N.Y.2d 309, 314). Often there is no direct evidence of a defendant's mental state and the jury must infer intent from the surrounding facts and the defendant's actions (People v. Smith, supra, at 315; People v. Valverde, 205 A.D.2d 444; People v McGee, 204 A.D.2d 353; People v. Harris, 191 A.D.2d 643). Here, the jury was not bound to accept the defendant's stated purpose of getting his own door back in unlawfully entering the apartment (see, People v. Smith, supra, at 315). Despite the defendant's denial of these actions, the jury was free to believe the testimony of the People's witnesses which established that the defendant forced his way into the apartment, removed a door, damaged the walls and removed cabinets (cf., People v Athanasopoulos, 206 A.D.2d 381). Therefore, a rational jury could conclude from the circumstances that the defendant, at the time that he unlawfully entered the apartment, intended to commit a crime therein (see, Penal Law § 140.25).

The defendant's remaining contentions are unpreserved for appellate review or without merit (see, People v. Fenderson, 203 A.D.2d 585; People v. Flores, 84 N.Y.2d 184, 187). Mangano, P.J., Thompson, Copertino and Hart, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Giannizzero

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 21, 1994
209 A.D.2d 635 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)
Case details for

People v. Giannizzero

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. GENNARO GIANNIZZERO…

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

Date published: Nov 21, 1994

Citations

209 A.D.2d 635 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)
619 N.Y.S.2d 307

Citing Cases

People v. Freeman

In any event, the argument is without merit, because when viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to…

People v. Sweeney

05; People v Hawkins, 11 NY3d 484, 491-492). In any event, the evidence was legally sufficient to support the…