People v. Rodriguez
| Decision Date | 18 October 2011 |
| Citation | 957 N.E.2d 1133,17 N.Y.3d 486,933 N.Y.S.2d 631,2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 07257 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Isidro RODRIGUEZ, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Weil Gotshal & Manges, LLP, New York City (Evert J. Christensen, Jr., Seth Goodchild and Robert V. Spake, Jr., of counsel), and Office of the Appellate Defender (Richard M. Greenberg and Eunice C. Lee of counsel) for appellant.
Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York City (Deborah L. Morse and Gina Mignola of counsel), for respondent.
The question before the Court is whether the evidence in this case was legally sufficient to convict the defendant of criminal possession of a forged instrument in the second degree. We hold that it was.
In March 2007, as part of a criminal investigation, New York City Police Detective Steven Goetz interviewed a complainant who provided him with the name, photograph and phone number of a possible suspect whom she identified as Devine Perez. Goetz called the phone number and spoke to a person who identified himself as Devine Perez and who told Goetz that he was in Hartford, Connecticut and would be unable to come in to meet with the detective. Later that month, Goetz received information suggestive of the possible suspect's whereabouts. On March 19, 2007, while driving to that location, the detective spotted a man on the street whom he recognized to be the person in the photograph given to him by the complainant. Detective Goetz exited his vehicle and arrested the man, defendant Isidro Rodriguez. During the course of a search incident to arrest,1 Detective Goetz found the following items: a forged New York State driver's license bearing defendant's photograph, a forged New York State non-driver identification card bearing defendant's photograph, a forged Social Security card, a forged permanent resident card (“green card”) bearing defendant's photograph, four loose ID-sized photographs of defendant, and identification documents indicating defendant's true identity. Defendant's genuine identification documents were found in a wallet in his pocket, while the false documents, all in the name of Louis Amadou,2 were also found in his pocket but were not in his wallet. Upon arrest, Detective Goetz observed that defendant was wearing a tan corduroy suit jacket that defendant also appeared to be wearing in the photographs found in his possession.
Following a jury trial, defendant was convicted of four counts of criminal possession of a forged instrument in the second degree. The Appellate Division affirmed defendant's conviction (71 A.D.3d 450, 897 N.Y.S.2d 42 [1st Dept.2010] ), holding that there was sufficient circumstantial evidence from which the jury could rationally have inferred that defendant possessed the forged documents with intent to defraud, deceive, or injure, as required to sustain a conviction for criminal possession of a forged instrument as defined by Penal Law § 170.25. A Judge of this Court granted defendant leave to appeal (15 N.Y.3d 777, 907 N.Y.S.2d 466, 933 N.E.2d 1059 [2010] ), and we now affirm.
Evidence is sufficient to sustain a conviction where “ ‘there is any valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences which could lead a rational person to the conclusion reached by the jury on the basis of the evidence at trial’ ” ( People v. Mateo, 2 N.Y.3d 383, 409, 779 N.Y.S.2d 399, 811 N.E.2d 1053 [2004] [citations omitted] ). “A person is guilty of criminal possession of a forged instrument in the second degree when, with knowledge that it is forged and with intent to defraud, deceive or injure another, he utters or possesses any forged instrument of a kind specified in section 170.10” (Penal Law § 170.25). Forged government identification cards fall under one category of documents specified in Penal Law § 170.10.3
Because intent is an “ ‘invisible operation of [the] mind’ ” ( People v. Samuels, 99 N.Y.2d 20, 24, 750 N.Y.S.2d 828, 780 N.E.2d 513 [2002] [citation omitted] ), direct evidence is rarely available (in the absence of an admission) and is unnecessary where there is legally sufficient circumstantial evidence of intent (see People v. Bracey, 41 N.Y.2d 296, 301, 392 N.Y.S.2d 412, 360 N.E.2d 1094 [1977] [] ).
Defendant, relying on People v. Bailey, 13 N.Y.3d 67, 886 N.Y.S.2d 666, 915 N.E.2d 611 (2009), argues that the evidence of intent was insufficient in this case because he was arrested on a public street and as such there were no surrounding circumstances from which the inference of intent could permissibly be drawn.
In Bailey, the defendant was observed by police officers for a period of time before his arrest entering and exiting several fast food restaurants. During that time he never engaged in any conduct evincing intent to use the counterfeit bills in his possession to defraud anyone, nor were there any circumstances surrounding his arrest which suggested that he had the intent to do anything other than steal from the patrons of the restaurants he visited. In reversing the conviction for criminal possession of a forged instrument in the first degree, we made clear that intent cannot be presumed from knowing possession alone unless there is a statute establishing such a presumption ( see id. at 72, 886 N.Y.S.2d 666, 915 N.E.2d 611).
In contrast to Bailey, here there are several factors which, taken together, form a sufficient basis for the permissible inference that defendant acted with the requisite intent. Here, defendant had a motive to assume a false identity because he was aware that the police were searching for him. Furthermore, the fact that three of the four documents found in defendant's possession bear his photograph provides a sound basis for the inference that defendant actively participated in manufacturing the false identification...
To continue reading
Request your trial