People v. Moore
| Decision Date | 08 June 2007 |
| Docket Number | KA 05-01536. |
| Citation | 837 N.Y.S.2d 484,2007 NY Slip Op 04944,41 A.D.3d 1202 |
| Parties | THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. TERRY A. MOORE, Appellant. (Appeal No. 2.) |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Appeal from a judgment of the Erie County Court (Michael L. D'Amico, J.), rendered May 11, 2005. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of criminal possession of a forged instrument in the second degree.
It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.
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). Defendant failed to preserve for our review his contention that the conviction is not supported by legally sufficient evidence (see People v Gray, 86 NY2d 10, 19 [1995]) and, in any event, his contention is without merit. "An essential element of the offense of criminal possession of a forged instrument is knowledge by the defendant that the instrument is forged," which may be established circumstantially by conduct and events (People v Johnson, 65 NY2d 556, 560 [1985], rearg denied 66 NY2d 759 [1985]). "The mere negotiation or utterance of a forged instrument cannot, of itself, establish a presumption that defendant had knowledge of the forged nature of the instrument" (id. at 561).
Here, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People, we conclude that "the jury ... had a sufficient evidentiary basis upon which to find defendant's knowledge of the forged character of the possessed instrument beyond a reasonable doubt" (id.). The evidence established that defendant accepted and cashed a check from a customer of his corporate employer. The check was made payable to defendant's employer and was endorsed with the employer's name on the back of the check. The owner of the corporation was out of town when defendant accepted the check from the customer, and the owner of the corporation testified that she did not authorize defendant to cash it. The jury was entitled to infer that defendant had knowledge of the forged nature of the check inasmuch as the evidence established that he had exclusive possession of the initially unendorsed check upon accepting it from the customer and that, when defendant cashed the check, it was endorsed with his employer's name. Contrary to defendant's...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Mhina
...of a forged instrument, the element of knowledge “may be established circumstantially by conduct and events” ( People v. Moore, 41 A.D.3d 1202, 1203, 837 N.Y.S.2d 484,lv. denied9 N.Y.3d 879, 842 N.Y.S.2d 791, 874 N.E.2d 758). Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People, w......
-
People v. Woods
...prior bad acts inasmuch as defendant did not object to the evidence on that ground ( see CPL 470.05[2]; see also People v. Moore, 41 A.D.3d 1202, 1204, 837 N.Y.S.2d 484, lv. denied 9 N.Y.3d 879, 842 N.Y.S.2d 791, 874 N.E.2d 758). In any event, the testimony of the victim's boyfriend that de......
-
People v. Hold
...556, 561, 493 N.Y.S.2d 445, 483 N.E.2d 120,rearg. denied66 N.Y.2d 759, 497 N.Y.S.2d 1029, 488 N.E.2d 118;see People v. Moore, 41 A.D.3d 1202, 1203–1204, 837 N.Y.S.2d 484,lv. denied9 N.Y.3d 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......
-
People v. Dexter
...963 N.Y.S.2d 501 [4th Dept. 2013], lv denied 21 N.Y.3d 1076, 974 N.Y.S.2d 325, 997 N.E.2d 150 [2013] ; People v. Moore , 41 A.D.3d 1202, 1203-1204, 837 N.Y.S.2d 484 [4th Dept. 2007], lv denied 9 N.Y.3d 879, 842 N.Y.S.2d 791, 874 N.E.2d 758 [2007] ; see generally People v. Silberzweig , 58 A......