From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Hold

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.
Dec 21, 2012
101 A.D.3d 1692 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012)

Opinion

2012-12-21

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Steve HOLD, Defendant–Appellant.

The Legal Aid Bureau of Buffalo, Inc., Buffalo (Sherry A. Chase of Counsel), for Defendant–Appellant. Frank A. Sedita, III, District Attorney, Buffalo (David A. Heraty of Counsel), for Respondent.



The Legal Aid Bureau of Buffalo, Inc., Buffalo (Sherry A. Chase of Counsel), for Defendant–Appellant. Frank A. Sedita, III, District Attorney, Buffalo (David A. Heraty of Counsel), for Respondent.
PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., SMITH, FAHEY, CARNI, AND MARTOCHE, JJ.

MEMORANDUM:

Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him, following a nonjury trial, of five counts of criminal possession of a forged instrument in the second degree (Penal Law § 170.25). Contrary to defendant's contention, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People, we conclude that it is legally sufficient to establish that he had knowledge that the five checks were forged instruments ( see generally People v. Danielson, 9 N.Y.3d 342, 349, 849 N.Y.S.2d 480, 880 N.E.2d 1). All of the checks were both written to and endorsed by defendant, and the People presented photographic evidence of defendant at the teller counter at the time four of the checks were cashed. The account holder testified that several checks had been taken from her home and that she had not written any checks to defendant, whom she did not know. The evidence established that defendant cashed two different checks at separate branches of the same bank, within one hour. Defendant was arrested when he attempted to cash a fifth check and bank personnel ascertained that the account holder had not written the check to defendant. “Guilty knowledge of forgery may be shown circumstantially by conduct and events” and, here, defendant's conduct and the events support the determination that defendant knew that the checks were forged ( People v. Johnson, 65 N.Y.2d 556, 561, 493 N.Y.S.2d 445, 483 N.E.2d 120,rearg. denied66 N.Y.2d 759, 497 N.Y.S.2d 1029, 488 N.E.2d 118;see People v. Moore, 41 A.D.3d 1202, 1203–1204, 837 N.Y.S.2d 484,lv. denied9 N.Y.3d 879, 842 N.Y.S.2d 791, 874 N.E.2d 758;cf. People v. Green, 53 N.Y.2d 651, 652, 438 N.Y.S.2d 992, 421 N.E.2d 112;People v. Manges, 67 A.D.3d 1328, 1329, 889 N.Y.S.2d 341).

Viewing the evidence in light of the elements of the crime of criminal possession of a forged instrument in the second degree in this nonjury trial ( see Danielson, 9 N.Y.3d at 349, 849 N.Y.S.2d 480, 880 N.E.2d 1), we further conclude that the verdict is not against the weight of the evidence ( see generally People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495, 515 N.Y.S.2d 761, 508 N.E.2d 672).

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.


Summaries of

People v. Hold

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.
Dec 21, 2012
101 A.D.3d 1692 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012)
Case details for

People v. Hold

Case Details

Full title:The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Steve HOLD…

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.

Date published: Dec 21, 2012

Citations

101 A.D.3d 1692 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012)
956 N.Y.S.2d 769
2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 8978

Citing Cases

People v. Rebollo

As such, we discern no basis upon which to disturb the jury's credibility determination ( see generally…

People v. Womack

denied 66 N.Y.2d 759, 497 N.Y.S.2d 1029, 488 N.E.2d 118 ). Here, we conclude that "the jury ... had a…