People v. Cunningham

• Decision Date: 17 December 1979
• Citation: 425 N.Y.S.2d 59,48 N.Y.2d 938,401 N.E.2d 182
• Parties: , 401 N.E.2d 182 The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Michael CUNNINGHAM, Appellant.
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

Page 59

425 N.Y.S.2d 59

48 N.Y.2d 938, 401 N.E.2d 182

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Michael CUNNINGHAM, Appellant.

Court of Appeals of New York.

Dec. 17, 1979.

Michael Cunningham, pro se, and James E. Barnes, II, Oneida, for appellant.

William F. O'Brien, III, Dist. Atty. (Edward D. Saslaw, Carmel, of counsel), for respondent.

OPINION OF THE COURT MEMORANDUM.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

For reasons stated by the Appellate Division, there was sufficient evidence to corroborate the accomplice testimony. In addition to the evidence concerning the moneygram dispatched on September 10, 1974, many of the details of the accomplice's narrative were corroborated by the defendant's own testimony, as well as by that of other witnesses. The corroborative evidence, although it did not independently establish the elements of the offense, was more than legally necessary. Contrary to defendant's argument, evidence corroborating accomplice testimony "need not prove the commission of the crime. It is enough if the evidence shown to connect the defendant with the crime (reasonably) satisfies the jury that the accomplice is telling the truth" (People v. Arce, 42 N.Y.2d 179, 186, 397 N.Y.S.2d 619, 623, 366 N.E.2d 279, 283; see, e. g., People v. Daniels, 37 N.Y.2d 624, 629-630, 376 N.Y.S.2d 436, 439-440, 339 N.E.2d 139, 141). Here, the independent evidence so harmonized " 'with the accomplice's narrative as to have a tendency to furnish the necessary connection between the defendant and the crime' " (People v. Daniels, 37 N.Y.2d 624, 629, 376 N.Y.S.2d 436, 440, 339 N.E.2d 139, 141).

Nor was error committed when the prosecution offered proof at trial as to a portion of the criminal transaction which occurred outside the dates specified in the indictment. "It is well settled that except where time is a material ingredient of the crime the prosecution is not confined in its evidence to the precise date laid in the indictment, but may prove that the offense was committed at any time prior to the commencement of the prosecution and such proof does not constitute a material variance" (People v. La Marca, 3 N.Y.2d 452, 458-459, 165 N.Y.S.2d 753, 758, 144 N.E.2d 420, 424, cert. den. 355 U.S. 920, 78 S.Ct. 351, 2 L.Ed.2d 279; accord, e. g., People v. Jackson, 111 N.Y. 362, 369, 19 N.E. 54, 56; People v. Krank, 110 N.Y. 488, 492, 18 N.E. 242, 244). In any event, here, the People produced evidence from which the jury could...