People v. Hutchinson
| Decision Date | 10 June 1982 |
| Citation | 453 N.Y.S.2d 394,56 N.Y.2d 868,438 N.E.2d 1109 |
| Parties | , 438 N.E.2d 1109 The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. William HUTCHINSON, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, 81 A.D.2d 1045, 439 N.Y.S.2d 225.
With respect to his conviction for attempt to commit robbery, defendant contends that inasmuch as he was charged with attempting to steal money "from Dennis O'Connor", the People were required to prove that O'Connor was an "owner", i.e., a "person who has a right to possession * * * superior to that of the taker" (Penal Law, § 155.00, subd. 5). The jury was charged in the language of the statute, which did not require proof here that O'Connor had an independent right of possession but only that he had a possessory right which, however limited or contingent, was superior to that of defendant. Because the proof was uncontradicted that O'Connor was an employee of the bank it cannot be said that the jury was not warranted in concluding that as such employee he had a right of possession superior to that of defendant, who had no right of possession whatsoever. In this view it is immaterial that the proof was that the bank's money came from the drawer of two other tellers.
In relation to his conviction for escape (Penal Law, § 205.10, subd. 2), defendant urges that it was error for the trial court not to have given a charge requiring a showing of knowledge or volition. The Trial Judge had charged the language of the statute ("having been arrested for a felony, he escapes from custody") and the statutory definition of custody ("restraint by a public servant pursuant to an authorized arrest" ) and had told the jury that to convict on the escape count it must find that on September 11, 1977 defendant had been lawfully arrested for a felony, that he was then in the custody of a police officer pursuant to an authorized arrest and that on that day he escaped from custody. The commonly understood definition of the verb "escape" is "to get away (as by flight or conscious effort): break away, get free or get clear (the prisoner escaped from prison)" (Webster's Third New International Dictionary, p. 774; see, also, Hechtman, Practice Commentaries, McKinney's...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Crosswell, 14286
...Mich. 71, 79-80, 179 N.W.2d 617 (1970); State v. Carlos, 187 N.J.Super. 406, 412, 455 A.2d 89 (1982); People v. Hutchinson, 56 N.Y.2d 868, 869, 438 N.E.2d 1109, 453 N.Y.S.2d 394 (1982); State v. Land, 681 S.W.2d 589, 591 (Tenn.Crim.App.1984). 9 This position is sustained by Professors LaFav......
-
State v. Morant
...384 Mich. 71, 79-80, 179 N.W.2d 617 (1970); State v. Carlos, 187 N.J.Super. 406, 412, 455 A.2d 89 (1982); People v. Hutchin 56 N.Y.2d 868, 869, 438 N.E.2d 1109, 453 N.Y.S.2d 394 (1982); State v. Land, 681 S.W.2d 589, 591 (Tenn.Crim.App.1984)." State v. Crosswell, supra, at 254, 612 A.2d It ......
-
People v. Podolsky
...Since larceny is an offense against the rightful possession of property, title is not dispositive. (People v. Hutchinson, 56 N.Y.2d 868, 869, 453 N.Y.S.2d 394, 438 N.E.2d 1109 [1982]; People v. Izzo, 96 Misc.2d 634, 635, 409 N.Y.S.2d 623 [Bronx Crim Ct, 1978]; Perkins, Crim Law 2d Ed [1969]......
-
People v. Pallagi
...“had a possessory right which, however limited or contingent, was superior to that of defendant[s]” ( People v. Hutchinson, 56 N.Y.2d 868, 869, 453 N.Y.S.2d 394, 438 N.E.2d 1109). Contrary to defendants' further contention, there is legally sufficient evidence establishing that they stole p......