People v. Oakley
| Decision Date | 16 June 1983 |
| Citation | 95 A.D.2d 944,464 N.Y.S.2d 567 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Ronald D. OAKLEY, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
G. Peter VanZandt, Binghamton, for appellant.
Patrick H. Mathews, Broome County Dist. Atty., Binghamton (JoAnn Rose Parry, Binghamton, of counsel), for respondent.
Before MAHONEY, P.J., and MAIN, MIKOLL, YESAWICH and LEVINE, JJ.
Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Broome County, rendered December 19, 1979, upon a verdict convicting defendant of the crime of criminal possession of stolen property in the first degree.
Defendant, a licensed automobile dealer and dismantler, was convicted of possessing a stolen white 1974 Datsun automobile. Sometime between February 23 and March 8, 1978, the car, owned by one Sherry Dodge, vanished from the lot of a car dealer who was attempting to sell it for her. On May 4, 1978, Dodge's insurer, the Royal Globe Insurance Company, paid her approximately $5,100 to cover the loss; at that time, legal title to the Datsun passed to Royal Globe. Defendant acquired the automobile in early March after receiving an anonymous telephone call informing him that there was an abandoned vehicle located on Pine Hill Road in the Town of Colesville. He towed the car to his junkyard where it sat for some three months until it was purchased by Bruce Lamb for $1,200. Lamb testified that the car was in poor condition when he bought it and that he had repaired it using parts removed from a wrecked green Datsun also found in defendant's yard; these parts were apparently included in the $1,200 purchase price. Upon conviction, defendant was sentenced to a term of five years' probation conditioned upon payment of restitution to Royal Globe; he was also fined $1,000.
On appeal, defendant attacks the indictment, the jury instructions, the proof of the car's value, and the sentence. Initially, we reject the contention that defendant is entitled to reversal because the indictment specified that Sherry Dodge owned the car when in fact Royal Globe did. The identity of the car's owner was not a material element of the crime; all that was necessary was the statement in the indictment that the car was stolen property. This technical error, as to ownership, did not prejudice defendant and was harmless (see People v. Cunningham, 64 A.D.2d 722, 406 N.Y.S.2d 899, affd. 48 N.Y.2d 938, 425 N.Y.S.2d 59, 401 N.E.2d 182).
The challenge to the court's instructions to the jury, concerning the presumption that defendant knew the property was stolen, is more imaginative than persuasive. Section 165.55 (subd. 2) of the Penal Law permits that presumption to be drawn if defendant obtained the stolen property "without having ascertained by reasonable inquiry that the person from whom he obtained it has a legal right to possess it". It is claimed that the presumption is inapplicable because the car was abandoned and the caller anonymous; therefore, no "person" existed to whom defendant could have addressed any questions. We are not...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Grossfeld
...v. United States, 395 U.S. 6, 89 S.Ct. 1532, 23 L.Ed.2d 57; People v. Baveghems, 107 A.D.2d 815, 484 N.Y.S.2d 652; People v. Oakley, 95 A.D.2d 944, 464 N.Y.S.2d 567). The defendant also argues that he was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel at trial. The defendant contends that ......
-
People v. Isolano
...evidence to support the inference that the defendant was in the business of buying and selling automobile parts (see, People v. Oakley, 95 A.D.2d 944, 464 N.Y.S.2d 567). The defendant's claim that testimony about a missing vehicle identification number plate constituted prejudicial introduc......
-
People v. Agnello
...since the defendant Agnello had ascertained as much from the undercover officers at the time of delivery (see, People v. Oakley, 95 A.D.2d 944, 464 N.Y.S.2d 567). This evidence, when viewed in conjunction with DeLuca's admission that A & L made no inquiry as to the ownership of the parts pu......
-
People v. Medina
...factors in determining what price a person would be willing to pay for the item were he buying it legitimately. See People v. Oakley, 95 A.D.2d 944, 945, 464 N.Y.S.2d 567; Evidence [Prince] § 188 [10th Ed.1973]. Therefore, because the People did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the ......