People v. Ruckdeschel
| Decision Date | 20 February 1976 |
| Citation | 51 A.D.2d 861,380 N.Y.S.2d 163 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. James A. RUCKDESCHEL, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Nathaniel A. Barrell, Public Defender, Rosalie M. Stoll, Buffalo, for appellant.
Edward C. Cosgrove, Dist. Atty., William E. Balthasar, Buffalo, for respondent.
Before MARSH, P.J., and MOULE, MAHONEY, DILLON and WITMER, JJ.
We agree with defendant's contention that the record contains no evidence, dehors the confession of defendant, of the commission of the crime of robbery, first degree. The corroboration required by CPL 60.50 must be such independent evidence as will establish the corpus delicti, i.e., the body of the crime of robbery, first degree, without any reliance upon the confession itself; and such evidence, independent of the confession, must establish each and every element of the crime, and then the confession may be used to show that the crime, independently established, was committed by the confessing defendant (People v. Ulisano, 18 A.D.2d 432, 435, 239 N.Y.S.2d 983, 986, and cases therein cited). The crime of robbery, first degree, has a tow-part body or corpus, the requisite component elements being (a) forcible stealing (larceny) of property, and (b) aggravating factors of serious physical injury, or use or threatened use of a dangerous weapon (Penal Law § 160.15). Concededly, the evidence adduced as to the stabbed condition of the victim's body and the pulled out and torn pants pockets of the victim clearly establish a forceful taking. However, independent of defendant's confession, there is absolutely no evidence as to a larcenous taking from the victim. Upon such analysis of the evidence, it must be concluded that the crime of robbery, first degree, was not independent established and that defendant's convictions on the two counts thereof must be reversed, those counts dismissed and sentences imposed thereon vacated. Other contentions of defendant raised on this appeal have been considered and found without merit.
Judgment unanimously modified in accordance with Memorandum and as modified affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Robinson
...the intent felony.”See also, e.g., People v. Crute, 236 A.D.2d 208, 653 N.Y.S.2d 549 (1st Dept.1997); People v. Ruckdeschel, 51 A.D.2d 861, 380 N.Y.S.2d 163 (4th Dept.1976); People v. Ricco, 11 A.D.3d 343, 784 N.Y.S.2d 28 (1st Dept.2004). Accordingly, the fact that in the instant case, the ......
-
People ex rel. Ruckdeschel v. LeFevre
...insufficient corroboration to sustain petitioner's confession to the robbery, but affirmed the other convictions (People v. Ruckdeschel, 51 A.D.2d 861, 380 N.Y.S.2d 163). The instant proceeding for a writ of habeas corpus was commenced by petition dated November 19, 1982. In the petition, p......
-
People v. Alvarez
...than that presented in this information, the defendant here could not be convicted at trial. CPL 60.50; People v. Ruckdeschel, 51 A.D.2d 861, 380 N.Y.S.2d 163 (4th Dep't 1976) (independent evidence of larcenous taking required to sustain robbery While CPL 60.50 speaks to the quantum of proo......
-
People v. Fulmore
...charged was committed by someone (see, e.g., People v. Lipsky, 57 N.Y.2d 560, 457 N.Y.S.2d 451, 443 N.E.2d 925; People v. Ruckdeschel, 51 A.D.2d 861, 380 N.Y.S.2d 163 [reversing a robbery conviction because there was no proof of a taking]; People v. Ulisano, 18 A.D.2d 432, 435, 239 N.Y.S.2d......