People v. Reid
| Decision Date | 12 May 1978 |
| Citation | 408 N.Y.S.2d 170,95 Misc.2d 822 |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Term |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. James REID, Defendant-Appellant. |
Martin W. Kramer, New York City, for appellant.
Robert M. Morgenthau, Dist. Atty. (Brian Rosner, New York City, of counsel), for respondent.
Before TIERNEY, J. P., and RICCOBONO and ASCH, JJ.
Judgment of conviction rendered on December 1, 1975 is affirmed.
Defendant was arrested after a police officer, assigned to the Pickpocket and Confidence Squad, allegedly observed the defendant and another, acting in concert, accost an individual in a public place with intent to defraud him by means of a confidence game commonly known as the "handkerchief switch."
The defendant entered a plea of guilty to violation of Penal Law section 165.30, fraudulent accosting, and was sentenced to a term of 80 days imprisonment. The defendant now challenges the constitutionality of Penal Law section 165.30.
Penal Law section 165.30, as amended in 1971, provides as follows:
1. A person is guilty of fraudulent accosting when he accosts a person in a public place with intent to defraud him of money or other property by means of a trick, swindle or confidence game.
2. A person who, either at the time he accosts another in a public place or at some subsequent time or at some other place, makes statements to him or engages in conduct with respect to him of a kind commonly made or performed in the perpetration of a known type of confidence game, is presumed to intend to defraud such person of money or other property. Fraudulent accosting is a class A misdemeanor.
Prior to its 1971 amendment, Penal Law section 165.30 had read:
A person is guilty of fraudulent accosting when he accosts a person in a public place and, either at that time and place or subsequently in any place, he makes statements to such person of a sort commonly made or used in the perpetration of a known type of confidence game.
Fraudulent accosting is a class A misdemeanor.
In People v. Harris, 64 Misc.2d 510, 315 N.Y.S.2d 66, this court found the statute, prior to its amendment, to be unconstitutional lacking, as it did, any requirement of fraudulent intent, and in addition creating the apparent necessity of police expert testimony for the establishment of criminality. The issue before us now is whether the amendment to the statute was cosmetic or curative of those defects previously found.
We note that in 1972 the Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Term, Second Department, in People v. Harris, 30 N.Y.2d 544, 330 N.Y.S.2d 391, 281 N.E.2d 185, in its affirmance of a conviction...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Cruz
...of the acts prohibited (Boyce Motor Lines v. United States, 342 U.S. 337, 72 S.Ct. 329, 96 L.Ed. 367)" People v. Reid, 95 Misc.2d 822, 408 N.Y.S.2d 170 p. 171, 1978. In cases where the evidence disclosed beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was "highly intoxicated" (United States v.......
-
People v. Farrar
..." To support that contention defendant cites a number of cases which refer to a confidence game as a swindle or trick. People v. Reid, 95 Misc.2d 822, 408 N.Y.S.2d 170; People v. Brown, 81 Misc.2d 149, 365 N.Y.S.2d 149; People v. Williams, 93 Misc.2d 726, 402 N.Y.S.2d 310. (See, also, 2 Cri......