People v. Brousseau

• Decision Date: 13 April 2017
• Citation: 52 N.Y.S.3d 534,149 A.D.3d 1275
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Rejean BROUSSEAU, Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

149 A.D.3d 1275
52 N.Y.S.3d 534

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent,
v.
Rejean BROUSSEAU, Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.

April 13, 2017.

52 N.Y.S.3d 535

Rebecca L. Fox, Plattsburgh, for appellant.

Andrew J. Wylie, District Attorney (Jaime A. Douthat of counsel), for respondent.

Before: McCARTHY, J.P., GARRY, ROSE, MULVEY and Aarons, JJ.

McCARTHY, J.P.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Clinton County (McGill, J.), rendered November 13, 2014, upon a verdict convicting defendant of the crime of criminal possession of a forged instrument in the first degree.

52 N.Y.S.3d 536

Defendant was arrested in August 2012 for tendering eight uncontestedly counterfeit $100 bills, in United States currency, to a gas station clerk in the Town of Champlain, Clinton County. Thereafter, defendant was charged with criminal possession of a forged instrument in the first degree. In September 2014, a jury trial was held, after which defendant was found guilty as charged. In November 2014, the court sentenced defendant to time served and a $2,800 fine, plus mandatory fees. Defendant appeals, and we affirm.

Defendant's contentions on appeal are limited to challenges to the legal sufficiency of the evidence, or alternatively to the weight of the evidence, as to the requisite elements that defendant knew that the eight $100 bills were forged and that he intended to defraud, deceive or injure another by tendering them. "In conducting a legal sufficiency analysis, [this Court] view [s] the evidence in the light most favorable to the People and evaluate[s] ‘whether there is any valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences which could lead a rational person to the conclusion reached by the jury on the basis of the evidence at trial and as a matter of law satisfy the proof and burden requirements for every element of the crime charged’ " (People v. Graham, 138 A.D.3d 1242, 1242, 29 N.Y.S.3d 656 [2016], lv. denied, 28 N.Y.3d 930, 40 N.Y.S.3d 358, 63 N.E.3d 78 [2016], quoting People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495, 515 N.Y.S.2d 761, 508 N.E.2d 672 [1987] ). As to weight of the evidence review, where a different finding would not have been unreasonable, this Court must, "like the trier of fact below, weigh the relative probative force of conflicting testimony and the relative strength of conflicting inferences that may be drawn from the testimony" (People v. Romero, 7 N.Y.3d 633, 643, 826 N.Y.S.2d 163, 859 N.E.2d 902 [2006] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; People v. Olsen, 124 A.D.3d 1084, 1085–1086, 1 N.Y.S.3d 555 [2015], lv. denied, 26 N.Y.3d 933, 17 N.Y.S.3d 96, 38 N.E.3d 842 [2015] ). "In reviewing the evidence, [this Court] accord[s] great deference to the jury's credibility determinations given its opportunity to hear the testimony and observe the witnesses' demeanor" (People v. Lopez–Aguilar, 64 A.D.3d 1037, 1037, 883 N.Y.S.2d 376 [2009] [citation omitted], lv. dismissed 13 N.Y.3d 940, 895 N.Y.S.2d 330, 922 N.E.2d 919 [2010] ).

"A person is guilty of criminal possession of a forged instrument in the first degree when, with knowledge that it is forged and with intent to defraud, deceive or injure another, he [or she] utters or possesses any forged instrument," such as money (Penal Law § 170.30 ; see Penal Law § 170.15 ; People v. Bailey, 13 N.Y.3d 67, 70, 886 N.Y.S.2d 666, 915 N.E.2d 611 [2009] ). "An essential element of the offense of criminal possession of a forged instrument is knowledge by the defendant that the instrument is forged" (People v. Johnson, 65 N.Y.2d 556, 560, 493 N.Y.S.2d 445, 483 N.E.2d 120 [1985] [citations omitted]; see Penal Law §§ 15.05[2], 170.30 ). "The mere negotiation or utterance of a forged instrument cannot, of itself, establish a presumption that defendant had knowledge of the forged nature of the instrument" (People v. Johnson, 65 N.Y.2d at 561, 493 N.Y.S.2d 445, 483 N.E.2d 120 [citations omitted]; accord People v. Silberzweig, 58 A.D.3d 762, 762, 871 N.Y.S.2d 690 [2009], lv. denied 12 N.Y.3d 920, 884 N.Y.S.2d 701, 912 N.E.2d 1082 [2009] ). "Guilty knowledge of forgery may be shown circumstantially by conduct and events" (People v. Johnson, 65 N.Y.2d at 561, 493 N.Y.S.2d 445, 483 N.E.2d 120 [citation omitted]; accord People v. Smith, 138 A.D.3d 1248, 1250, 29 N.Y.S.3d 660 [2016], lv. denied

52 N.Y.S.3d 537

27 N.Y.3d 1139, 39 N.Y.S.3d 121, 61 N.E.3d 520 [2016] ; see People v. Rodriguez, 17 N.Y.3d 486, 489, 933 N.Y.S.2d 631, 957 N.E.2d 1133 [2011] ).

The attendant at the gas station at issue testified that she was working when defendant pulled in driving a semi-trailer truck with an attached camper. The attendant secured defendant's driver's license, as per policy for customers wishing to purchase diesel fuel without first providing a credit card, after which defendant dispensed $775 of diesel fuel. The attendant testified that, when defendant returned and began counting bills from a wad of money to pay for the fuel, she realized the bills were counterfeit "right off the bat" and "[j]ust by looking at" them. She checked the eight $100 bills that defendant had tendered with a counterfeit marker, confirmed that they were counterfeit and informed defendant of this fact. Defendant then gave the attendant eight authentic $100 bills. At some point, defendant asked the attendant to return the counterfeit bills to him, which request she refused.

The state trooper first dispatched to the scene testified that it was immediately apparent that the bills...