From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Woodard

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Mar 10, 1989
148 A.D.2d 997 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989)

Opinion

March 10, 1989

Appeal from the Erie County Court, Dillon, J.

Present — Denman, J.P., Green, Pine, Balio and Davis, JJ.


Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: On October 19, 1986, at approximately 10:00 P.M., defendant and two others broke into the Buffalo Traditional Magnet School, causing damage to school property. We reject defendant's claim that his conviction of criminal mischief in the third degree is not supported by legally sufficient evidence. The general foreman for the Buffalo Board of Education testified that the cost of repair of the window and doors damaged during the break-in was $343. This testimony was sufficient proof that the value of the damaged property exceeded $250. In order to support a conviction for third degree criminal mischief, "it is sufficient to define value in terms of the cost of repair of the property, so long as the property is repairable" (People v. Simpson, 132 A.D.2d 894, 895, lv denied 70 N.Y.2d 937; cf., People v. Gaines, 136 A.D.2d 731, 734, lv denied 71 N.Y.2d 896).

Similarly, we find that the evidence was legally sufficient to support defendant's conviction for burglary in the third degree. Defendant acknowledges his unlawful entry into the school building but contends that the People failed to prove that he intended to commit a crime therein. We reject this contention. Since intent is subjective, it may be established by proof of defendant's conduct and other facts and circumstances (People v Privott, 133 A.D.2d 528, 529, lv denied 70 N.Y.2d 936; see, People v. Mackey, 49 N.Y.2d 274, 279). Defendant's intent can be inferred from the circumstances of his entry into the building (People v. Privott, supra, at 529; see, People v. Barnes, 50 N.Y.2d 375, 379-381; People v. Henderson, 41 N.Y.2d 233, 236-237) as well as from the property damage discovered within the building (People v. Lowman, 137 A.D.2d 622, 623).


Summaries of

People v. Woodard

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Mar 10, 1989
148 A.D.2d 997 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989)
Case details for

People v. Woodard

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. JAMES WOODARD…

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

Date published: Mar 10, 1989

Citations

148 A.D.2d 997 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989)
539 N.Y.S.2d 229

Citing Cases

Pierce v. Frost

The statutory period properly includes a period tacked on from plaintiffs' predecessors in interest, who had…

People v. Whitfield

Memorandum: Viewing the proof in the light most favorable to the People (People v Malizia, 62 N.Y.2d 755,…