People v. Washington
| Decision Date | 20 November 1989 |
| Citation | 548 N.Y.S.2d 48,155 A.D.2d 634 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Ryan WASHINGTON, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
John F. Clennan, Ronkonkoma, for appellant.
Elizabeth Holtzman, Dist. Atty., Brooklyn (Barbara D. Underwood and Peter R. Chatzinoff, of counsel; Michael D. Carter on the brief), for respondent.
Before MOLLEN, P.J., and BROWN, RUBIN and SULLIVAN, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Kramer, J.), rendered June 8, 1988, convicting him of grand larceny in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. 141 Misc.2d 895, 535 N.Y.S.2d 327.
ORDERED that the judgment is modified, on the law, by reducing the conviction of grand larceny in the fourth degree to petit larceny, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for resentencing.
On April 29, 1987, the complainant went to buy cocaine in a building where he had bought it before. As he entered the building, he was followed by the defendant from whom he had previously bought cocaine. Once inside the building, the complainant voluntarily gave $20 to the defendant with the expectation of receiving two "dimes" of cocaine in return. However, instead of giving the complainant the cocaine, the defendant told him that he had been "taxed", a street term meaning that he had been tricked, and the money would not be returned. After saying that, the defendant put his hand in his jacket pocket and told the complainant to leave. The complainant testified that he thought that there might have been a weapon in the defendant's pocket, but that he never saw one. Later, the complainant returned to the building with the police and the defendant was arrested and charged with robbery in the third degree and grand larceny in the fourth degree. Following a trial by jury, the defendant was acquitted of the robbery charge but was convicted of grand larceny in the fourth degree. He now appeals.
Penal Law § 155.30(5) provides in pertinent part that "[a] person is guilty of grand larceny in the fourth degree when he steals property and when * * * [t]he property, regardless of its nature and value, is taken from the person of another" (emphasis supplied). When the complainant voluntarily handed $20 to the defendant hoping to receive two "dimes" of cocaine in return, the defendant's acceptance of the money did not constitute a "taking from the person" within the meaning of Penal Law § 155.30(5) (see, People v. Robert YY, 58 A.D.2d 920, 921, 396 N.Y.S.2d 728 [...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ibarra v. State
...victim into giving the defendant a handkerchief filled with money would not constitute a taking from the person); People v. Washington, 548 N.Y.S.2d 48, 49 (App. Div. 1989) (emphasis added) (holding that using deceit to obtain the victim's money did not constitute a taking from the person b......
-
Ibarra v. State, 69617
......Such reasoning continues today. See People v. Williams, 57 Cal.4th 776, 161 Cal.Rptr.3d 81, 305 P.3d 1241, 1245 (2013) ("a property owner who is fraudulently induced to transfer possession of ... See, e.g., Willis, 480 So.2d at 57-58 (Alabama) ; Warner, 801 P.2d at 1188 (Colorado) ; Washington, 548 N.Y.S.2d at 49 (New York). Unlike the majority, I find those well-reasoned opinions more persuasive than two words of dicta from a ......
-
People v. Villanueva
...with acquittal of robbery charge, since the jury rejected the complainant's account of the use of the shotgun], and People v. Washington, 155 A.D.2d 634, 548 N.Y.S.2d 48 [2nd Dept.1989] [no "taking" where the complainant voluntarily gave the defendant $20 with the expectation of receiving h......
-
People v. Cooper
...... Nevertheless, there is sufficient evidence to support a conviction of the lesser-included offense of petit larceny (Penal Law § 155.25; see, CPL 470.15[2][a]; People v. Washington, 155 A.D.2d 634, 635, 548 N.Y.S.2d 48). Accordingly, the defendant's conviction for grand larceny in the fourth degree under the second count of the indictment is reduced to petit larceny. There is no need to remit the matter for resentencing since the defendant has already served the maximum ......