From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Kelley

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jul 18, 1988
142 A.D.2d 690 (N.Y. App. Div. 1988)

Opinion

July 18, 1988

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Friedmann, J.).


Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant claims that the independent evidence tending to connect him with the crime, as required by CPL 60.22 (1), was legally insufficient to corroborate the testimony of the accomplice. We disagree. The independent corroborative evidence need only "tend * * * to connect" the defendant to the commission of the crime charged; it need not prove that he committed it (CPL 60.22; People v. Hudson, 51 N.Y.2d 233, 238). Nor need it independently establish each element of the offense (see, People v. Cunningham, 48 N.Y.2d 938). At bar, the defendant's presence at the scene, although generally insufficient corroboration in itself (see, People v. Hudson, supra; People v. Wasserman, 46 A.D.2d 915), is sufficient when viewed in the context of the defendant's own testimony (see, People v. Burgin, 40 N.Y.2d 953) and other evidence in the record.

The defendant, his taxicab placed at the scene of the burglary by independent testimony, testified that he drove for approximately six hours making at least six stops, while the men he claimed to be mere passengers sold most of the stolen goods. The defendant was subsequently arrested while driving with these men, and some of the stolen goods were found in the passenger compartment and trunk of his vehicle and upon the passengers. We find that this evidence, when all the evidence is viewed cumulatively (see, People v. Hudson, supra), "tends to connect" the defendant to the crime charged — acting in concert to burglarize the complainant's home.

Moreover, in according the People the benefit of every favorable inference, as we must (see, People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620, 621), we find that there was legally sufficient evidence that the defendant possessed the goods found in his vehicle upon his arrest (see, People v. Dennis, 88 A.D.2d 963). Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15). Mangano, J.P., Brown, Lawrence and Harwood, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Kelley

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jul 18, 1988
142 A.D.2d 690 (N.Y. App. Div. 1988)
Case details for

People v. Kelley

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. ARMAND KELLEY…

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

Date published: Jul 18, 1988

Citations

142 A.D.2d 690 (N.Y. App. Div. 1988)

Citing Cases

People v. Dawkins

Although the neighbor's account in this regard is at odds with the testimony of the defendant's accomplice,…