Opinion
December 17, 1984
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Lagana, J.).
Judgment affirmed.
It is undisputed that defendant unlawfully entered and remained in complainant's apartment. Thus, the pivotal issue is whether the proof adduced was sufficient to permit the jury to infer that defendant intended to commit a crime therein (see People v Samuel, 20 A.D.2d 919). While recognizing that such proof inherently involves the "intangible operations of the mind" ( People v. Rumaner, 45 A.D.2d 290, 292), it cannot be said that the jury in rendering a guilty verdict drew "unwarranted conclusions based on probabilities of low degree" ( People v Benzinger, 36 N.Y.2d 29, 32).
Defendant was unlawfully present in a ransacked apartment which had obviously been burglarized, with property in his hands. Upon being discovered therein by the superintendent of the building, he attempted to flee. The jury, relying on "common human experience" ( People v. Wachowicz, 22 N.Y.2d 369, 372), found that this evidence supported the inference that defendant intended to commit a crime. After reviewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution (see Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 318-319; People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620), we find that the jury was entitled to conclude that defendant was guilty of burglary in the second degree beyond a reasonable doubt. Mollen, P.J., Gibbons, Thompson and Bracken, JJ., concur.