People v. Jones
| Decision Date | 10 March 1975 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Gaston JONES, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
William E. Hellerstein and William J. Gallagher, New York City (Lynn Fahey, New York City, of counsel), for appellant.
Eugene Gold, Dist. Atty., Brooklyn (Steven W. Fisher, Elmhurst, of counsel), for respondent.
Before MARTUSCELLO, Acting P.J., and COHALAN, CHRIST, BRENNAN and BENJAMIN, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered May 11, 1973, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, grand larceny in the second degree and unauthorized use of a vehicle, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Judgment reversed, on the law and as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, and new trial ordered on all counts of the indictment as found by the Grand Jury.
Defendant was indicted on four counts, namely, (1) robbery in the first degree, (2) grand larceny in the second degree, (3) unauthorized use of a vehicle and (4) criminal possession of stolen property in the first degree. The indictment and conviction arose out of the theft of a liquor delivery truck and its contents on December 18, 1970. The truck's driver, Iacovelli, testified that he and his helper, while stopped at a red light, were held up by two armed gunmen. They were told to park, turn the engine off, leave the ignition key in place and put the key to the rear doors of the truck on the floor. The four men then walked several blocks to the basement of a building, where the two armed men apparently planned to detain the truckers. However, the janitor of the building appeared and the two armed men fled. The police were immediately called. Shortly thereafter two policemen responding to a radio call discovered the truck, with its engine running, at the spot where it had been parked. They found defendant and one Overton, unarmed, in it. The contents of the truck had not been disturbed. Overton was indicted, but died prior to trial.
One police officer testified that he approached the truck from the driver's side and observed Overton sliding over to the passenger side of the truck. He grabbed Overton as he exited from the truck. The other police officer testified that he approached the truck from the passenger side. Defendant exited from the truck and tried to run from the scene, but was apprehended.
Defendant and Overton were arrested and informed of their constitutional rights. Over objection, the prosecution elicited from one of the officers that neither of them had a conversation with defendant at the time of the arrest. Defendant testified that as he walked from a nearby subway station and turned a corner a police officer, with his gun drawn, ran out from behind a truck, placed him against a wall and arrested him.
In its charge the court instructed the jury as to the principle of recent and exclusive possession of the fruits of a crime. The jury found defendant guilty as charged in the indictment. Defendant moved, Inter alia, to set aside the verdict on the ground that the guilty verdict, as to robbery and grand larceny on the one hand and criminal possession of stolen property on the other, was inconsistent. The court thereupon dismissed the count of criminal possession of stolen property, apparently under the mandate of subdivision 2 of section 165.60 of the Penal Law.
In our opinion, the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Ortero
...People v. Johnson, 64 A.D.2d 907, 910-911, 408 N.Y.S.2d 519, affd. 48 N.Y.2d 674, 421 N.Y.S.2d 881, 397 N.E.2d 392; People v. Jones, 47 A.D.2d 761, 762, 365 N.Y.S.2d 36; People v. Santiago, 47 A.D.2d 476, 367 N.Y.S.2d 280.) Moreover, it is not without substantial significance that the alleg......
-
People v. Clark
...defense counsel and defendant's alibi and alibi witness (see People v. Garcia, 40 A.D.2d 983, 338 N.Y.S.2d 476; People v. Jones, 47 A.D.2d 761, 365 N.Y.S.2d 36; People v. Petrucelli, 44 A.D.2d 58, 353 N.Y.S.2d 194; Code of Professional Responsibility EC MOLLEN, P. J., and HOPKINS and O'CONN......
-
People v. Demko
...the prosecutor, during summation, to express his personal belief that defendant was guilty of the crimes charged (see People v. Jones, 47 A.D.2d 761, 365 N.Y.S.2d 36). The cumulative effect of these errors was to deprive defendant of a fair trial, and the conviction must accordingly be reve......
-
People v. Skinner
...of justice should prevail despite the defendant's lack of objection (People v. Winston, 52 A.D.2d 432, 384 N.Y.S.2d 457; People v. Jones, 47 A.D.2d 761, 365 N.Y.S.2d 36). The trial court's not submitting the robbery first degree count to the jury results in a dismissal of that count and it ......