From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Storms

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 22, 2003
2 A.D.3d 757 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)

Opinion

2002-02445.

December 22, 2003.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Barbaro, J.), rendered March 7, 2002, convicting him of burglary in the second degree and criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (Alexis A. Ascher of counsel), for appellant.

Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove and Ann Bordley of counsel; Steven Starr on the brief), for respondent.

Before: HOWARD MILLER and THOMAS A. ADAMS, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

Upon viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the defendant, the trial court must instruct the jury on a claimed defense if it is supported by a reasonable view of the evidence ( see People v. Butts, 72 N.Y.2d 746, 750; People v. Collins, 290 A.D.2d 457). Here, the evidence established that the police responded to a call of a "burglary in progress" and arriving at the scene, observed the defendant exiting the complainant's apartment through a second-floor window onto a fire escape. The complainant's jewelry and television remote control were found in the defendant's back pocket. The police officers observed that the apartment was "in shambles" and had been "ransacked," finding "clothes everywhere," and "[a]ll kinds of items just pulled out of drawers." The defendant's claim that he believed he was given permission and authority to be in the apartment by someone named "Jake" was unsubstantiated. Moreover, the trial court's instructions to the jury on the elements of burglary and criminal possession of stolen property adequately covered the defense theory ( see People v. Williams, 81 N.Y.2d 303, 317; People v. Banks, 248 A.D.2d 183). Accordingly, the court properly refused the defendant's request for a specific charge on the mistake of fact defense.

The defendant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit.

PRUDENTI, P.J., S. MILLER, H. MILLER and ADAMS, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Storms

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 22, 2003
2 A.D.3d 757 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
Case details for

People v. Storms

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE, ETC., respondent, v. NATHANIEL STORMS, appellant

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

Date published: Dec 22, 2003

Citations

2 A.D.3d 757 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
769 N.Y.S.2d 595

Citing Cases

State v. Kowalewski

Moreover, error, if any, in the prosecutor's questions during cross-examination of the defendant regarding…

People v. Storms

June 13, 2005. Application by the appellant for a writ of error coram nobis to vacate, on the ground of…