People v. Shouder

5 Citing cases

  1. People v. Roth

    No. 2021-06257 (N.Y. App. Div. Nov. 12, 2021)

    Here, the conduct alleged in the counts of the indictment charging defendant with custodial interference in the first degree occurred outside Ontario County and did not have a materially harmful impact on the governmental processes or community welfare of Ontario County. That conduct impacted three people: the children and their mother, none of whom resided in Ontario County, and did not impact the community as a whole (see Fea, 47 N.Y.2d at 77-78; Seifert, 113 A.D.2d at 82; cf. People v Shouder, 237 A.D.2d 545, 545 [2d Dept 1997], lv denied 90 N.Y.2d 898 [1997]; People v Sandy, 236 A.D.2d 104, 114-115 [1st Dept 1997], lv denied 91 N.Y.2d 977 [1998]). We therefore modify the judgment by reversing those parts convicting defendant of custodial interference in the first degree under counts one and two of the indictment and dismissing those counts of the indictment.

  2. People v. Roth

    199 A.D.3d 1380 (N.Y. App. Div. 2021)   Cited 1 times

    Here, the conduct alleged in the counts of the indictment charging defendant with custodial interference in the first degree occurred outside Ontario County and did not have a materially harmful impact on the governmental processes or community welfare of Ontario County. That conduct impacted three people: the children and their mother, none of whom resided in Ontario County, and did not impact the community as a whole (seeFea , 47 N.Y.2d at 77-78, 416 N.Y.S.2d 778, 390 N.E.2d 286 ; Seifert , 113 A.D.2d at 82, 495 N.Y.S.2d 543 ; cf.People v. Shouder , 237 A.D.2d 545, 545, 655 N.Y.S.2d 576 [2d Dept. 1997], lv denied 90 N.Y.2d 898, 662 N.Y.S.2d 441, 685 N.E.2d 222 [1997] ; People v. Sandy , 236 A.D.2d 104, 114-115, 666 N.Y.S.2d 565 [1st Dept. 1997], lv denied 91 N.Y.2d 977, 672 N.Y.S.2d 856, 695 N.E.2d 725 [1998] ). We therefore modify the judgment by reversing those parts convicting defendant of custodial interference in the first degree under counts one and two of the indictment and dismissing those counts of the indictment.

  3. People v. Chrysler

    287 A.D.2d 7 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)   Cited 4 times

    A "[p]articular effect of an offense" is defined as "a materially harmful impact upon the * * * community welfare of a particular jurisdiction" (CPL 20.10). The marihuana sale and distribution activities in the Town of New Windsor referred to in the warrant application constituted conduct which was likely to have a materially harmful impact upon the welfare of the City of Newburgh, considering the close proximity of these jurisdictions (see, People v. Kassebaum, 264 A.D.2d 664, affd 95 N.Y.2d 611, cert denied US [June 4, 2001]; People v. Shouder, 237 A.D.2d 545; Matter of Arcuri v. Kirk, 231 A.D.2d 962; cf., People v. Cox, 127 Misc.2d 336, 339-340). Since the detective's application indicated that the investigation of illegal drug activity in the City of Newburgh led him to the information about the defendant's activities, it could reasonably be inferred that the search of the defendant's premises would uncover evidence of the sale, possession, and distribution of drugs in the City of Newburgh as well (see, People v. Herrara, 112 A.D.2d 315).

  4. People v. Perkins

    243 A.D.2d 404 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)

    Were we to review them, we would find them to be without merit. The New York County robbery could not have been prosecuted in Kings County merely on the basis of defendant's arrest in Kings County, days later, in possession of the fruits of the robbery ( see, People v. Harris, 116 A.D.2d 588; People v. Leonard, 106 A.D.2d 470, lv denied 64 N.Y.2d 1020; People v. Artis, 74 A.D.2d 644), absent additional circumstances linking the two crimes ( see, People v. Shouder, 237 A.D.2d 545; People v. Danielson, 184 A.D.2d 723, 724, lv denied 80 N.Y.2d 928). We further conclude that CPL 20.40 (4) (f) would not have conferred jurisdiction upon Kings County under the facts presented ( cf., People v. Greenberg, 89 N.Y.2d 553, 555). Defendant's constitutional double jeopardy claim is without merit ( see, People v. Latham, 83 N.Y.2d 233, 238).

  5. People v. Roth

    2021 N.Y. Slip Op. 6257 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2021)

    Here, the conduct alleged in the counts of the indictment charging defendant with custodial interference in the first degree occurred outside Ontario County and did not have a materially harmful impact on the governmental processes or community welfare of Ontario County. That conduct impacted three people: the children and their mother, none of whom resided in Ontario County, and did not impact the community as a whole (see Fea, 47 N.Y.2d at 77-78; Seifert, 113 A.D.2d at 82; cf. People v Shouder, 237 A.D.2d 545, 545 [2d Dept 1997], lv denied 90 N.Y.2d 898 [1997]; People v Sandy, 236 A.D.2d 104, 114-115 [1st Dept 1997], lv denied 91 N.Y.2d 977 [1998]). We therefore modify the judgment by reversing those parts convicting defendant of custodial interference in the first degree under counts one and two of the indictment and dismissing those counts of the indictment.