From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Hazel

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Feb 7, 2006
26 A.D.3d 191 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006)

Opinion

7788.

February 7, 2006.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Arlene R. Silverman, J.), rendered June 7, 2004, convicting defendant, after a nonjury trial, of petit larceny, and sentencing him to a term of one year, unanimously affirmed.

Laura R. Johnson, The Legal Aid Society, New York (Sheilah Fernandez of counsel), for appellant.

Robert M. Morgenthau, District Attorney, New York (Brian Hail of counsel), for respondent.

Before: Buckley, P.J., Marlow, Sweeny, Catterson and McGuire, JJ., concur.


The court's verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence ( see People v. Gaimari, 176 NY 84, 94). Defendant's argument that he was "merely present" as others stole merchandise is meritless. Instead, defendant's course of conduct before, during and after the theft established his accessorial liability. The evidence supports the conclusion that defendant intentionally participated in the theft by acting as a lookout, distracting the store's owners, and interfering with the owners' efforts to recover the stolen merchandise from the escaping codefendant ( see e.g., People v. Austin, 290 AD2d 225, lv denied 97 NY2d 750).


Summaries of

People v. Hazel

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Feb 7, 2006
26 A.D.3d 191 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006)
Case details for

People v. Hazel

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. WILLIAM HAZEL…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: Feb 7, 2006

Citations

26 A.D.3d 191 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006)
2006 N.Y. Slip Op. 989
810 N.Y.S.2d 138

Citing Cases

People v. Forde

Based upon this evidence, a reasonable inference can be drawn that Defendants were intentionally…

People v. Forde

The verdicts were supported by legally sufficient evidence and were not against the weight of the evidence…