People v. Haupt
| Decision Date | 14 February 1928 |
| Parties | PEOPLE v. HAUPT. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
George Haupt was convicted of attempted grand larceny in the first degree. Judgment of conviction was reversed, and new trial granted by the Appellate Division (221 App. Div. 485, 224 N. Y. S. 163), and defendant appeals.
Affirmed.
See, also, 218 App. Div. 251, 218 N. Y. S. 210.
Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third department.
Gerald W. O'Connor, Thomas O'Connor and George E. O'Connor, all of Waterford, for appellant.
Frederick C. Filley, Dist. Atty., of Troy (Philip J. Cirillo, of Troy, of counsel), for the People.
Indicted on two counts for burglary in the third degree and for attempted grand larceny, both arising out of a transaction at the same time and place, the defendant was acquitted of the former charge and convicted of the latter. Upon his appeal from the judgment, the Appellate Division reversed on the law and the facts and granted a new trial. Claiming that the verdict acquitting him of burglary entitled him to a dismissal of the entire indictment, the defendant now appeals to this court from so much of the judgment as directs a new trial.
[1][2] Locked in a garage was a motorcar worth $2,500. A window of the building was broken open and a door inside was forced. The car was not taken. In acquitting the defendant of burglary, the jury may have found either that he did not break or enter the building or that he did so with no intent to commit a crime therein. There is no inconsistency in a finding, however, that he attempted to commit larceny. If, having entered the building with no evil design, he then formed the intent to steal the car and acted in pursuance of that intent; if with a like intent he reconnoitered the garage to determine the means of forcing his way in, or tried the doors with the purpose of entering and stealing the car, he was at least guilty of an attempt at larceny. People v. Collins, 234 N. Y. 355, 137 N. E. 753. Nor does his trial for attempted larceny when acquitted of burglary subject him to double jeopardy. The same facts would not lead to a conviction for both alleged offenses.
Whether the evidence produced in this case was sufficient to justify the finding on which the conviction must rest we do not discuss. By its reversal on the facts, the Appellate Division has apparently held it was not, although in its opinion it states that ‘the circumstantial evidence was sufficient to warrant...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Dercole
...that "(i)llogical as it may seem under the proof" the jury had the right to regard one count as unproven (see People v. Haupt, 247 N.Y. 369, 371, 160 N.E. 643, 643). Dunn thus accorded with established New York precedents, and until People v. Bullis, 30 A.D.2d 470, 294 N.Y.S.2d 331, in 1968......
-
Dunn v. United States
...602, 609, 71 A. 1058; State v. Daly, 77 Mont. 387, 391, 250 P. 976; Weinecke v. State, 34 Neb. 14, 23, 51 N. W. 307; People v. Haupt, 247 N. Y. 369, 371, 160 N. E. 643; State v. Brown, 198 N. C. 41, 150 S. E. 635. ...
-
Abraham v. Justices of New York Supreme Court of Bronx County
...transaction (Matter of Martinis v. Supreme Ct. of State of N.Y., 15 N.Y.2d 240, 258 N.Y.S.2d 65, 206 N.E.2d 165; cf. People v. Haupt, 247 N.Y. 369, 160 N.E. 643). The Legislature, apparently dissatisfied with the Federal formulation, adopted in the Criminal Procedure Law (CPL 40.20, subd. 2......
-
People v. Notrica
...explained away or reconciled the inconsistencies on any rational basis. (People v. Scheppa, 295 N.Y. 359, 67 N.E.2d 581; People v. Haupt, 247 N.Y. 369, 160 N.E. 643; People v. Hovnanian, supra; People v. Hollenbeck, supra). It is sometimes stated that the 'jury failed to do their duty' (Peo......