A man filed an appeal from a judgment convicting him of burglary in the third degree, criminal possession of stolen property in the third degree and petit larceny, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial of that branch of the man’s motion which was to suppress physical evidence.
The appellate division stated that the hearing court’s denial of the man’s motion to suppress the items seized from his person should not be reversed. It was further stated that the decision was supported by the record, which established that the stop and inspection of the man at the scene of the crime was founded upon a reasonable suspicion that he had committed the crime and that he was armed and could be dangerous.
Sources revealed that to sustain a conviction based on circumstantial evidence, the facts from which the inference of the offender’s guilt is drawn must be established with certainty, be inconsistent with his innocence, and exclude to a moral certainty every hypothesis other than guilt.
At trial, the evidence established that the man was observed outside of the burglarized warehouse after the crime had been reported and that he was discovered with property that belonged to the corporation which owned the warehouse. In addition, a sneaker print was found inside the warehouse which matched the sneaker worn by the man. Under the said situation, there can be no doubt that the man was guilty of burglary in the third degree and the facts from which the inference of the man’s guilt was drawn were established with certainty, were inconsistent with his innocence, and excluded to a moral certainty every hypothesis other than guilt.
Furthermore, contrary to the man’s contention, the evidence sufficiently established that the corporation had a superior right of possession to the property found on the man. As such, his convictions for petit larceny and criminal possession of stolen property in the third degree were supported by legally sufficient evidence. In addition, the court found that the man’s guilt was proven beyond a reasonable doubt and that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence. Consequently, the court ordered to affirm the judgment.
In a similar criminal action, the surety for bail appeals from an order which denied its motion to remit the forfeiture of the undertaking filed by it.
The court cited previous related case where it has set the guidelines for disposition of applications for remission of bond forfeitures. In this action, the surety’s principal was charged with forgery and petit larceny, not the type of crime usually associated with organized crime. The period of delay from the nonappearance of the principal was five days. There had been a series of postponement s from the time of the original arrest and it is not indicated in the record at whose request the postponements were granted.
In the opponent’s affidavit, submitted in opposition to the application for remission, an assistant district attorney did not claim prejudice, delay or expense to them. The affidavit contained a hearsay assertion that some court officer had claimed difficulty in locating the principal. It is noted that the principal eventually pleaded guilty to petit larceny.
Since sureties provide a necessary and important social function in the area and since the offender may suffer severe hardship, and for all the other reasons noted, the court is forced to hold that remission is warranted and that it was an irresponsible exercise of discretion in the case to deny the application. As a result, the court order to reverse, without costs, and motion for remission of forfeiture of the undertaking filed is granted.
There are young people who engage in illegal activity because of money. If you get arrested and you want to uphold your rights, you can seek help from the Queens County Criminal Attorney at Stephen Bilkis and Associates office. You can also ask assistance from the Queens County Petit Larceny Lawyer or Queens County Grand Larceny Attorney for burglary related cases.