People v. Simpson

• Decision Date: 30 July 1987
• Citation: 132 A.D.2d 894,518 N.Y.S.2d 453
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Paul Fullwood SIMPSON, Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 453

518 N.Y.S.2d 453

132 A.D.2d 894

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v.Paul Fullwood SIMPSON, Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division Third Department.

July 30, 1987.

Philip C. Learned, Elmira, for appellant.

James Hayden, Dist. Atty. (Margaret M. Cronan, of counsel), Elmira, for respondent.

Before KANE, J.P., and MAIN, MIKOLL, YESAWICH and HARVEY, JJ.

MAIN, Justice.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Chemung County(Danaher, Jr., J.), rendered April 28, 1986, upon a verdict convicting defendant of the crime of criminal mischief in the second degree.

After having worked for the complainant, Rudy Lutz, as a truck driver for 3 1/2 weeks, defendant was fired by Lutz due to Lutz's dissatisfaction with defendant's performance.The firing occurred at Lutz's house immediately after defendant had finished making a delivery, and the truck which defendant had driven was parked in front of Lutz's house.Defendant apparently became irate and began swearing and making threats against Lutz, his wife and Lutz's trucks.Thereafter, Lutz directed defendant to remove his belongings from the truck and offered to drive him home.Lutz and his wife both saw defendant enter the truck and saw him emerge 8 to 10 minutes later with a blanket and a radio.After driving defendant home and calling another truck driver to come and move the truck, Lutz and the other driver discovered that the interior of the truck was extensively damaged.As a result, defendant was charged with and found guilty of criminal mischief in the second degree.

Prominent among defendant's claims on this appeal is his claim that the People failed to prove the value of the damaged property.Under Penal Law § 145.10, the elements of the crime of criminal mischief in the second degree are (1) intent to damage the property; (2) actual damage to tangible property of another person; (3) no reasonable ground for belief of a right to damage the property; and (4) damage to the property in excess of $1,500 (see, Hechtman, Practice Commentaries, McKinney's Cons. Laws of N.Y., Book 39, Penal Law§ 145.00, at 65).Thus, unlike grand larceny (see, Penal Law §§ 155.30,155.35,155.40), the value of the damaged property is not an element of the crime, and the definition of value for purposes of larceny (see, Penal Law § 155.20) is not specifically applicable to the crime of criminal mischief.To the extent that it is necessary to demonstrate the value of damaged property for criminal mischief purposes (i.e., to show that the value of the property prior to the infliction of damage was not less than the amount of damage necessary to convict a defendant of criminal mischief in the second degree), it is sufficient to define value in terms of the cost of repair of the property, so long as the property is repairable (see, 8 Zett, NY Crim Proc, Penal Law, p 73.2[2] ).Such was done here; the evidence showed that the truck was repairable and was repaired and that the cost of repairing the truck exceeded $1,500.Accordingly, the People have sufficiently demonstrated the amount of damage to the truck.

Defendant also contends that County Court erred in permitting Lutz to testify concerning defendant's swearing and threats and concerning an incident that occurred while Lutz was driving defendant home in which defendant removed the keys from Lutz's vehicle to prevent Lutz from leaving defendant.According to defendant, this testimony constituted evidence of uncharged crimes and was highly prejudicial.We find no error in the admission of this testimony.Evidence of uncharged crimes is admissible when it is "inextricably interwoven" with the admissible evidence; that is to say, the evidence is explanatory of acts done or words used in the admissible parts of the evidence and it is necessary for a full comprehension of directly related evidence (see, People v. Ely, 68 N.Y.2d 520, 529-531, 510 N.Y.S.2d 532, 503 N.E.2d 88).Moreover, evidence of uncharged crimes may be admitted to show, inter alia, a defendant's intent or motive to commit a crime (see, People v. Lewis, 69 N.Y.2d 321, 325, 514 N.Y.S.2d 205, 506 N.E.2d 915).Here, not only were the swearing, threats and key-taking incident interwoven with Lutz's recitation of...