A woman is charged with two counts of petit larceny but she seeks to dismiss the complaint. She asserts that the complaint is facially deficient. But, the complainant filed a response asserting that the charges are sufficiently supported.
The complainant asserts, and the woman does not deny, that the woman was present at the home of the complainant when the incident of stealing happened.
The initial complaint asserts that the complainant left her wallet, containing a debit card, inside her bedroom while the woman was taking care of the complainant’s paralyzed husband and that when the complainant returned home, the Credit card was missing from her wallet.
The complainant makes similar allegations regarding her other card, which was apparently, left on top of a table in her husband’s bedroom.
At some succeeding unspecified date, the complainant discovered that both cards had been used to make several hundred dollars in purchases which she had not authorized.
As a result, the complainant added to her allegation that she had left her home for approximately an hour. She further stated that she locked and secured the doors leaving only the woman and her paralyzed husband inside the house. Further, when she returned, she found the doors locked and secured with the woman and her husband inside.
The complainant further alleged that she noticed that her property was missing shortly after the woman left their house.
The initial complaint also asserted that there were no other persons who entered the place of the incident.
Based on records, the law provides that every accusatory tool must contain two components on which it includes an accusatory portion designating the offense charged and a factual portion containing evidentiary facts which support or tend to support the charges indicated in the accusatory portion.
Subsequently, the court founds that the factual allegations contained in the misdemeanor information tend to support the charges that have been brought against the woman.
Sources revealed that the evidence against the woman is circumstantial and does not prevent the use of such evidence in establishing her guilt. The supposed evidence may be used to establish any element of the crimes alleged, including the woman’s intent.
The criminal court also cited previous case in which the dismissal of an indictment charging a police officer with depraved indifference murder was reversed. Viewing evidence that was completely circumstantial, the first department noted that the choice of whether or not the offender’s conduct was reckless lies with a jury, and is not to be made by the court on a motion to dismiss an indictment prior to trial.
Further, the court also cited previous related case in which another police officer was charged with grand larceny in the third degree and petit larceny for removing property from the residences of burglary complainant’s. The evidence at trial revealed that the property was taken and that the offender was the only person with the opportunity to take it since he was the only person alone in the rooms where the property was located. The offender then sought reversal of his conviction on the grounds that the evidence presented at trial was legally deficient to prove his guilt because it did not exclude to a moral certainty every reasonable hypothesis of his innocence.
On the other hand, the parties are reminded that the court’s review is limited to whether or not the complainant’s allegations as stated in the criminal court complaint are sufficient. The facts alleged need only establish the existence of a case, even if those facts would not be legally sufficient to prove guilt.
Consequently, the court denied the woman’s motion to dismiss the complaint against her. Moreover, all other arguments advanced by the woman have been reviewed and rejected by the court as being without merit.
It is important to be cautious with our personal belongings because opportunists are always ready to grab them every time they have the chance to do so. Whenever you want to commence a complaint, you can seek legal guidance from the Kings County Grand Larceny Attorney as well as with the Kings County Criminal Lawyer at Stephen Bilkis and Associates.