From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Holley

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.
Oct 8, 2021
198 A.D.3d 1351 (N.Y. App. Div. 2021)

Opinion

666 KA 17-00689

10-08-2021

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Jason D. HOLLEY, Defendant-Appellant.

TIMOTHY P. DONAHER, PUBLIC DEFENDER, ROCHESTER (JAMES A. HOBBS OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. SANDRA DOORLEY, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ROCHESTER (KAYLAN PORTER OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.


TIMOTHY P. DONAHER, PUBLIC DEFENDER, ROCHESTER (JAMES A. HOBBS OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

SANDRA DOORLEY, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ROCHESTER (KAYLAN PORTER OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.

PRESENT: WHALEN, P.J., SMITH, LINDLEY, TROUTMAN, AND WINSLOW, JJ.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him, following a jury trial, of three counts of falsifying business records in the first degree ( Penal Law § 175.10 ) but acquitting him of three concomitant counts of insurance fraud in the fifth degree ( § 176.10 ). Contrary to defendant's contention, the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the People (see People v. Contes , 60 N.Y.2d 620, 621, 467 N.Y.S.2d 349, 454 N.E.2d 932 [1983] ), is legally sufficient to support the conviction (see generally People v. Bleakley , 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495, 515 N.Y.S.2d 761, 508 N.E.2d 672 [1987] ). Viewing the evidence in light of the elements of the crimes as charged to the jury (see People v. Danielson , 9 N.Y.3d 342, 349, 849 N.Y.S.2d 480, 880 N.E.2d 1 [2007] ), we reject defendant's further contention that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence (see generally Bleakley , 69 N.Y.2d at 495, 515 N.Y.S.2d 761, 508 N.E.2d 672 ). Although a different verdict would not have been unreasonable, it cannot be said that the jury failed to give the evidence the weight it should be accorded (see generally id. ).

Defendant further contends that the split verdict is repugnant. Even assuming, arguendo, that defendant preserved that contention for our review by objecting to the verdict "before the jury was excused" ( People v. Hunter , 46 A.D.3d 1417, 1418, 848 N.Y.S.2d 480 [4th Dept. 2007], lv denied 10 N.Y.3d 812, 857 N.Y.S.2d 45, 886 N.E.2d 810 [2008] ), we find no repugnancy in the verdict. A conviction will be reversed as repugnant "only in those instances where acquittal on one crime as charged to the jury is conclusive as to a necessary element of the other crime, as charged, for which the guilty verdict was rendered" ( People v. Tucker , 55 N.Y.2d 1, 7, 447 N.Y.S.2d 132, 431 N.E.2d 617 [1981], rearg denied 55 N.Y.2d 1039, 449 N.Y.S.2d 1030, 434 N.E.2d 1081 [1982] ). "The determination as to the repugnancy of the verdict is made solely on the basis of the trial court's charge and not on the correctness of those instructions" ( People v. Hampton , 61 N.Y.2d 963, 964, 475 N.Y.S.2d 273, 463 N.E.2d 614 [1984] ). Moreover, we cannot consider "the particular facts of the case" ( People v. Johnson , 70 N.Y.2d 819, 820, 523 N.Y.S.2d 434, 517 N.E.2d 1320 [1987] ; see People v. Muhammad , 17 N.Y.3d 532, 539, 935 N.Y.S.2d 526, 959 N.E.2d 463 [2011] ).

Here, the jury's not guilty verdict on the counts of insurance fraud did not necessarily negate an essential element of the falsifying business records in the first degree counts. "A person is guilty of falsifying business records in the first degree when he commits the crime of falsifying business records in the second degree, and when his intent to defraud includes an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof" ( Penal Law § 175.10 ). Although the jury acquitted defendant of insurance fraud, which is the crime the People alleged that defendant intended to commit or conceal by falsifying business records, the jury could "convict defendant of falsifying business records if the jury concluded that defendant had intended to commit or conceal another crime, even if he was not convicted of the other crime" ( People v. McCumiskey , 12 A.D.3d 1145, 1146, 784 N.Y.S.2d 816 [4th Dept. 2004] ; see People v. Crane , 87 A.D.3d 1386, 1386, 930 N.Y.S.2d 338 [4th Dept. 2011], lv denied 17 N.Y.3d 952, 936 N.Y.S.2d 78, 959 N.E.2d 1027 [2011] ).


Summaries of

People v. Holley

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.
Oct 8, 2021
198 A.D.3d 1351 (N.Y. App. Div. 2021)
Case details for

People v. Holley

Case Details

Full title:The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Jason D. HOLLEY…

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.

Date published: Oct 8, 2021

Citations

198 A.D.3d 1351 (N.Y. App. Div. 2021)
155 N.Y.S.3d 258

Citing Cases

People v. Trump

McCumiskey also held that evidence of intent to commit a crime is sufficient to satisfy the requirements of…

People v. Trump

Trump can be convicted of a felony even if he did not commit any crime beyond the falsification, so long as…