People v. Daddona

• Decision Date: 06 May 1993
• Citation: 599 N.Y.S.2d 530,615 N.E.2d 1014,81 N.Y.2d 990
• Parties: , 615 N.E.2d 1014 The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Joseph DADDONA, Appellant.
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

Page 530

599 N.Y.S.2d 530

81 N.Y.2d 990, 615 N.E.2d 1014

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Joseph DADDONA, Appellant.

Court of Appeals of New York.

May 6, 1993.

[81 N.Y.2d 991] [615 N.E.2d 1015] Mahler & Harris, P.C., Kew Gardens (Stephen R. Mahler, of counsel), for appellant.

Richard A. Brown, Dist. Atty. of Queens County, Kew Gardens (Kenneth B. Russo and Barbara D. Underwood, of counsel), for respondent.

OPINION OF THE COURT MEMORANDUM.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

Upon a jury verdict, defendant was convicted of several counts of possession of stolen property and one count of operating as an unlicensed vehicle dismantler. There was eyewitness testimony of surveillant police officers that stolen vehicles were driven to a two-family house in Queens where defendant then directed the drivers of the stolen vehicles into the driveway. Defendant was thereafter seen using arm motions and gestures to direct these same vehicles, now missing automobile parts, out of the driveway. Defendant was also seen loading car parts into the back of a station wagon.

Defendant contends that his conviction must be reversed because the trial court failed to give a requested charge to the jury on circumstantial evidence. The Appellate Division agreed that the charge should have been given, but found the error to be harmless. 181 A.D.2d 688, 581 N.Y.S.2d 356.

We affirm on the basis that the trial court did not err in failing to charge the jury on circumstantial evidence. Whenever a case relies wholly on circumstantial evidence to establish all elements of the charge, the jury should be instructed, in substance, that the evidence must establish guilt to a moral certainty (see, People v. Ford, 66 N.Y.2d 428, 441, 497 N.Y.S.2d 637, 488 N.E.2d 458). However, where a charge is supported with both circumstantial and direct evidence, the court need not so charge the jury ( see, People v. Barnes, 50 N.Y.2d 375, 380, 429 N.Y.S.2d 178, 406 N.E.2d 1071; People v. Gerard, 50 N.Y.2d 392, 397-398, 429 N.Y.S.2d 406, 406 N.E.2d 1343; People v. Von Werne, 41 N.Y.2d 584, 590, 394 N.Y.S.2d 183, 362 N.E.2d 982).

The criminal possession counts charged were amply supported by direct evidence: there was eyewitness testimony that defendant directed the stolen vehicles in and out of the driveway, thereby establishing, with direct evidence, that he was in constructive possession of the stolen vehicles, or that he was acting in concert with those...