People v. Manges
| Decision Date | 13 November 2009 |
| Docket Number | KA 06-02131 |
| Citation | 67 A.D.3d 1328,2009 NY Slip Op 08258,889 N.Y.S.2d 341 |
| Parties | THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. DANIEL F. MANGES, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Appeal from a judgment of the Monroe County Court (Frank P. Geraci, Jr., J.), rendered March 15, 2006. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of criminal possession of a forged instrument in the second degree and attempted grand larceny in the third degree.
It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously reversed on the law, the indictment is dismissed, and the matter is remitted to Monroe County Court for proceedings pursuant to CPL 470.45.
Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him, upon a jury verdict, of criminal possession of a forged instrument in the second degree (Penal Law § 170.25) and attempted grand larceny in the third degree (§§ 110.00, 155.35). We agree with defendant that County Court erred in admitting in evidence a printout of electronic data that was displayed on a computer screen when defendant presented a check, the allegedly forged instrument, to a bank teller. The People failed to establish that the printout falls within the business records exception to the hearsay rule (see CPLR 4518 [a]), which applies here (see CPL 60.10). The People presented no evidence that the data displayed on the computer screen, resulting in the printout, was entered in the regular course of business at the time of the transaction (see CPLR 4518 [a]). Indeed, the bank teller who identified the computer screen printout testified that "anyone [at the bank] can sit down at a computer and enter information." Because the computer screen printout was the only evidence establishing the identity of the purported true account owner upon which the check was drawn, we conclude that the evidence is legally insufficient to support the conviction (see generally People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). In the absence of the printout, the People failed to establish an essential element of the crime of criminal possession of a forged instrument, i.e., defendant's knowledge that the check presented to the bank teller was forged (see People v Johnson, 65 NY2d 556, 560 [1985], rearg denied 66 NY2d 759 [1985]; cf. People v Shabazz, 226 AD2d 290 [1996], lv denied 88 NY2d 994 [1996]) and, thus, they also failed to establish an essential element of the remaining crime...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Hernandez
...under Federal Law individuals need "agree to use or accept electronic records or electronic signatures." 28 People v. Manges, 67 A.D.3d 1328, 889 N.Y.S.2d 341 (4th Dept., 2009)(witness's lack of personal knowledge and absence of bank computer security should have precluded admission of elec......
-
People v. Jones
...on the computer screen, resulting in the printout, was entered in the regular course of business" ( People v. Manges, 67 A.D.3d 1328, 1329, 889 N.Y.S.2d 341 [4th Dept. 2009] ; see generally CPLR 4518[a] ; CPL 60.10 ). Moreover, although the printout was initially admitted only for the limit......
-
People v. Hold
...879, 842 N.Y.S.2d 791, 874 N.E.2d 758;cf. People v. Green, 53 N.Y.2d 651, 652, 438 N.Y.S.2d 992, 421 N.E.2d 112;People v. Manges, 67 A.D.3d 1328, 1329, 889 N.Y.S.2d 341). Viewing the evidence in light of the elements of the crime of criminal possession of a forged instrument in the second d......
- Matter of St. Ann's Home for the Aged v. Daines
-
Hearsay
...that the spreadsheet was the “true and accurate representation” of the electronic record, as required by CPLR 4518(a). People v. Manges , 67 A.D.3d 1328, 889 N.Y.S.2d 341 (4th Dept. 2009). In a prosecution for grand larceny resulting from presentation of a forged check, no foundation for ad......
-
Table of cases
...296, 449 N.Y.S.2d 168 (1982), § 20:20 People v. Mancini, 213 A.D.2d 1038, 627 N.Y.S.2d 488 (4th Dept. 1995), § 8:10 People v. Manges, 67 A.D.3d 1328, 889 N.Y.S.2d 341 (4th Dept. 2009), §§ 5:160, 11:40 People v. Manzella, 199 A.D.2d 964, 606 N.Y.S.2d 471 (4th Dept. 1993), § 8:20 People v. Ma......
-
Table of cases
...168 (1982), § 20:20 TABLE OF CASES — C-35 People v. Mancini, 213 A.D.2d 1038, 627 N.Y.S.2d 488 (4th Dept. 1995), § 8:10 People v. Manges, 67 A.D.3d 1328, 889 N.Y.S.2d 341 (4th Dept. 2009), §§ 5:160, 11:40 People v. Manzella, 199 A.D.2d 964, 606 N.Y.S.2d 471 (4th Dept. 1993), § 8:20 People v......
-
Documents
...spreadsheet had been made or that it was a true and accurate representation of the electronic record kept by plaintif. People v. Manges , 67 A.D.3d 1328, 889 N.Y.S.2d 341 (4th Dept. 2009). In a forgery prosecution, the People failed to come within the business records exception to the hears......