People v. Beaudet

• Decision Date: 27 December 1968
• Citation: 295 N.Y.S.2d 697,31 A.D.2d 705
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Guy BEAUDET, Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 697

295 N.Y.S.2d 697

31 A.D.2d 705

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Guy BEAUDET, Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department.

Dec. 27, 1968.

Thomas R. North, Clinton County Dist. Atty., Plattsburgh, for respondent.

Francis H. Neverett and Ara Asadourian, Plattsburgh, for appellant.

Before HERLIHY, J. P., and REYNOLDS, AULISI, STALEY and GABRIELLI, JJ.

REYNOLDS, Justice.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court, Clinton County, rendered August 4, 1966 upon a jury verdict convicting appellant of the crime of murder in the first degree (Penal Law, § 1044, subd. 2).

Appellant and two others, Willie Dupuis and Rene Pilon, were convicted of the felony murder of a bank employee killed during the March 22, 1965 robbery of a bank at Ellenburg Depot. Previously, on an appeal brought by Rene Pilon this Court directed that Pilon be retried separately because evidence admitted against the other defendants but not admissible against him had deprived him of a fair trial (People v. Pilon, 30 A.D.2d 365, 293 N.Y.S.2d 393). Appellant also seeks a retrial on the instant appeal.

The People proved the following account of the robbery. In the middle of March 1965 one Roland Berube, who later turned State witness, Albert Couture, who was the alleged driver and fourth participant in the robbery, and who also testified as a witness for the State, Pilon, Dupuis and appellant met and a plan was formulated to rob the National Commercial Bank and Trust Company's branch office at Ellenburg Depot in Clinton County. To provide a vehicle a Buick Wildcat was obtained a few days before March 22 by Dupuis and Berube and kept at a camp owned by Berube's mother. On the morning of the crime all but Berube met near the Canadian-American border where Dupuis and Pilon put on coveralls and Beaudet took out two sawed off carbines, gave them to the other defendants and kept a pistol for himself. Couture and the defendants got inside the Buick and with Couture driving, crossed into the United States over a minor road that was left unguarded by the Immigration Service. As they approached the bank, Beaudet, Pilon and Dupuis put on ski masks. Couture pulled up in front of the bank and the other three defendants got out and went inside. Of course since they were masked, none of the witnesses inside the bank were able to identify them aside from a rough approximation as to their height and weight. One of the defendants, for reasons not particularly clear, got into a slight scuffle with the head teller, Roy Dominy. In the tension of the moment this particular defendant fired two shots at Dominy fatally wounding him. The defendants immediately fled taking with them a little over four thousand dollars. They raced back to the wooded area in Canada, abandoned the Buick, hid the guns and returned to Montreal. One week later, on March 29, Beaudet returned with Couture to the area where they had previously hidden the guns, threw the pistol into the woods and later threw the carbines into the St. Lawrence River. Soon after all were arrested due to the fact that the bank had the serial numbers of a portion of the stolen money, and partly because Berube, whose fingerprints were found on the abandoned Buick, had given their names to the police.

Appellant first asserts that the Trial Court should have charged that Berube was an accomplice as a matter of law and that not to have done so was prejudicial error. If Berube was an accomplice as a matter of law the Trial Judge should have so instructed the jury and his failure to do so here would be clearly prejudicial (People v. Diaz, 19 N.Y.2d 547, 281 N.Y.S.2d 53, 227 N.E.2d 860; cf., People v. Watford, 19 A.D.2d 731, 242 N.Y.S.2d 369; People v. Nichols, 7 A.D.2d 786, 180 N.Y.S.2d 523). It is patently evident that Berube participated in the early preparation for the robbery particularly in securing the car and providing a place to secrete it till needed but it is also unquestioned that he did not take part in the actual robbery. In fact on cross-examination Berube maintained that he did not know the specific reason for stealing the car. He did concede that on Sunday, March 21, he knew that there would be a robbery in the United States though he did not know exactly where it would take place. Berube also testified that the other defendants asked him to go on the job but that he was not interested in participating. Berube asserted that he volunteered his mother's camp as a hiding place only as a favor to the defendants though he also mentioned that Couture promised him a nice gift on Wednesday night.

At the conclusion of the trial the Trial Judge instructed the jury that Couture, who partook in the actual robbery, was an accomplice as a matter of law and that pursuant to section 399 of the Code of Criminal Procedure his testimony had to be corroborated, but that it was a question of fact as to whether Berube was an accomplice and that his testimony need be corroborated by independent evidence only if the jury decided that he was in fact an accomplice.

An accomplice, of course, is one so connected with the crime that at common law he might himself have been convicted either as a principal or as an accessory before the fact (People v. Curkendall, 28 A.D.2d 589, 279 N.Y.S.2d 929; People...