People v. Geppner
| Decision Date | 17 July 1986 |
| Citation | 122 A.D.2d 394,505 N.Y.S.2d 208 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Albert A. GEPPNER, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Robert J. Krzys, Amsterdam, for appellant.
Guy P. Tomlinson, Dist. Atty., Amsterdam, for respondent.
Before MAHONEY, P.J., and KANE, WEISS, MIKOLL and YESAWICH, JJ.
Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Montgomery County (Best, J.), rendered May 24, 1985, upon a verdict convicting defendant of the crimes of grand larceny in the third degree, criminal possession of stolen property in the second degree and trespass.
On March 22, 1984, defendant and a friend, George Johnson, engaged in an activity they called "junking", whereby they would visit various establishments, pick up unwanted material and sell it for scrap value. At approximately 11:30 P.M. on that day, with defendant driving his pickup truck in the City of Amsterdam, Montgomery County, they spotted a pile of tire rims stacked up against the outside wall of a gas station. Defendant backed the truck up to the station, and both he and Johnson began loading the tire rims into the back of the truck. They had just finished loading the rims onto the truck when Amsterdam police officers arrived on the scene. Defendant ran from the scene and Johnson was arrested. Johnson apparently informed the officers that he had been with defendant; further, a check of the truck's license plate revealed that the truck was registered to defendant. One of the officers called several police agencies, gave them defendant's name and a description of his clothing, and informed them that defendant might be headed toward Saratoga County, where he lived.
Early in the morning of March 23, 1984, Saratoga County Deputy Sheriff Michael Woodcock was informed by his supervisor that a man by the name of Albert Geppner, wearing a red hunting jacket and hunting cap, was wanted for questioning in connection with the incident in Amsterdam and was thought to be in Saratoga County. Shortly thereafter, Woodcock spotted a man fitting the description given to him walking along State Route 67 in Saratoga County. He stopped his car and asked the man his name. The man, defendant, identified himself as "Albert Geppner". Woodcock informed him that the Amsterdam police were looking for him and, according to Woodcock, defendant voluntarily agreed to accompany him back to Amsterdam. With defendant in the car, Woodcock drove to Amsterdam. At that point, Woodcock met two Amsterdam police officers. One of the officers read defendant his Miranda rights and defendant was arrested.
At the police station, one of the officers asked defendant whether he would be willing to tell them what happened. According to this officer, defendant agreed and proceeded to give a statement which the officer typed. After he finished the statement, the officer asked defendant to read it; however, defendant was unable to do so, and informed the officer that he could not read or write. The officer then read the statement twice to defendant, defendant indicated that it was correct and defendant signed the statement. Defendant was indicted by the Montgomery County Grand Jury for grand larceny in the third degree, criminal possession of stolen property in the second degree and trespass. After trial, defendant was convicted of the crimes charged and this appeal ensued.
Defendant contends that the People failed to present sufficient evidence as to the value of the tire rims to support his conviction for grand larceny in the third degree and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Holz
...of the denial of a suppression motion in another [count] in which no judgment was rendered but which was covered by the plea" ( Dorsey, 122 A.D.2d at 394, 505 N.Y.S.2d 210 ; see Corti, 88 A.D.2d at 350–351, 453 N.Y.S.2d 439 ; Rivera, 57 A.D.2d at 811, 395 N.Y.S.2d 20 ). Although Dorsey and ......
-
People v. Yusufi
... ... Jennings, 69 N.Y.2d 103, 118, 512 N.Y.S.2d 652, 504 N.E.2d 1079). Notably, the property need not be removed from the owner's premises for the defendant to gain the requisite dominion and control (see, e.g., People v. Geppner, 122 A.D.2d 394, 396, 505 N.Y.S.2d 208); a slight movement of the property constitutes sufficient asportation ... (see, People v. Olivo, 52 N.Y.2d 309, 316 n. 2, 438 N.Y.S.2d 242, 420 N.E.2d 40) ... Here, the proof demonstrated that the victim's vehicle was equipped with two ... ...
-
People v. Welsh
... ... That he was apprehended before going any further does not negate the fact that a completed larceny occurred (see, People v. Robinson, 60 N.Y.2d 982, 983-984, 471 N.Y.S.2d 258, 459 N.E.2d 483; cf. People v. Geppner, 122 A.D.2d 394, 505 N.Y.S.2d 208). In our view, there is no reasonable view of the evidence to support a jury finding that defendant merely attempted to deprive the owner of the vehicle (see, People v. Glover, 57 N.Y.2d 61, 63-64, 453 N.Y.S.2d 660, 439 N.E.2d 376; see also, CPL 300.50). If the ... ...
-
People v. Coffey
... ... Keindl, 68 N.Y.2d 410, 422, 509 N.Y.S.2d 790, 502 N.E.2d 577). The credibility of that testimony was for the jury's consideration ( see, People v. Geppner, 122 A.D.2d 394, 396, 505 N.Y.S.2d 208) ... Further, we fail to see how the passing reference to the second victim could have adversely affected defendant's right to a fair trial or how the statement of the prosecutor in her summation exceeded the bounds of propriety. The severity ... ...