Grand Larceny

Published on: March 1, 2013

Court Discusses Charge of Criminal Facilitiation

by Stephen Bilkis

A man was indicted on charges of four counts of grand larceny in the second degree. He was arraigned and he was tried. A New York Criminal Lawyer said that after the presentation of the evidence for the prosecution, the counsel for the accused asked the court that instead of the four counts of grand larceny, the court consider instead charging the accused of four counts of criminal facilitation in the fourth degree. The trial court found that criminal facilitation in the fourth degree was a lesser included offense of Grand Larceny.

The trial court charged the man instead of four counts of criminal facilitation. The jury convicted him of the same charges and he was sentenced. The accused filed a motion to set aside the verdict of guilt on the ground that the lesser criminal offense of criminal facilitation is not a lesser included offense of grand larceny.

It was the contention of the accused that since the trial court did not have jurisdiction over the crime of criminal facilitation, it cannot have the power to charge the accused of that crime. However, the Supreme Court or Queens County found that since the accused himself moved that he be charged with the lesser included offense of criminal facilitation, he has waived his right to question the charge.

Published on: February 28, 2013

Court Reverses Grand Larceny Indictment

by Stephen Bilkis

In this proceeding, an intermediate order denying a motion to dismiss an indictment will have a review from the Supreme Court.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said it appears from evidence presented that a bank, a trust company and another corporation executed a statement of trust receipt financing. At the grand jury trial, the three officers of the bank were called as witnesses. The bank paid the automobile company the total sum of $21,430.59 for eight automobiles. An employee of the bank checked the floor plan of the corporation and found out that four from eight of the cars were missing. Another check was made five days later and the remaining four cars were also missing from the floor. Consequently, a letter was delivered to the corporation by the bank in which they demand payment of all amounts due under trust receipts or immediate possession of all new and used cars on which the bank held trust receipts. A similar notice was served and in the interval checks had been received by the bank drawn by the corporate dealer in payment of the amounts due on two of the cars. The checks were not paid because of insufficient funds. The bank received neither the automobiles nor the moneys due.

It was upon the evidence that an indictment was returned accusing the president of the corporation, individually, of the crime of grand larceny in the first degree. The president of the corporation, which was the trustee, secreted, withheld and appropriated to his own use, and that of a person other than the true owner of the automobiles.

Published on: February 27, 2013

Defendant Claims that Theft Charges Were Time Barred

by Stephen Bilkis

In 1991, the man assumed administrative duties at a nursing home. He became its principal operator in 1995. A New York Criminal Lawyer said at all relevant times, the nursing home was a participant in the Medicaid programs and was reimbursed through such programs for services provided to each state’s residents who were Medicaid recipients residing within its facility.

In 1993, the man, on behalf of the nursing home, submitted rate reports to the state setting forth the nursing home state rate. He thereafter certified that the nursing home was also going to provide physical, occupational and speech therapy services, as well as dental services, to the state’s Medicaid recipients but that the cost of such services was not included in the home state rate. Based upon the said reports, the state calculated the nursing home’s daily rate and then included add-on payments for the specified ancillary services.

In 1998, the state advised the nursing home that they going to review the services they provided to the state’s Medicaid recipients by out-of-state providers. They also requested the nursing home to make available for inspection all patient records dating back 1992. Following the said investigation, the man and the nursing home were each charged with two counts of grand larceny in the first degree and two counts of grand larceny in the second degree.

Published on: February 26, 2013

Court Discusses Elements of Grand Larceny in the Second Degree

by Stephen Bilkis

A man was accused of the crimes of criminal mischief in the second degree, two counts of criminal mischief in the fourth degree, two counts of grand larceny in the second degree and two counts of attempted grand larceny in the second degree.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said the accusation arise from the incident when the man directed his agents or employees to widen and reconstruct a town road and did thereby intentionally damage property of another person by destroying trees, stone walls, and wire fences, having no right to do so nor any reasonable ground to believe that he had such right, and did thereby steal and appropriate said road and property for his own benefit.

The man then made a motion and submitted an affidavit seeking various items of pre-trial relief. In the motion, the man asked the court to inspect the grand jury minutes. The court then granted the request to the extent that the court will examine the transcript of the proceedings.

Published on: February 25, 2013

Court Discusses Grand Larceny by Means of Extortion

by Stephen Bilkis

A man approached the sitting executive director of the New York State Republican Committee. He told the executive director that he will expose the criminal acts and official misconduct by a high-ranking elective Republican official. He also said that he will consider keeping quiet if he was given the amount of $25,000 yearly and a job with the state government for three years.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said the executive director went to the police and reported the extortion attempt. The police then asked the executive director to set up a meeting with the man. When the meeting was set, the police hooked up a microphone for the executive director to wear. The executive director then asked the man to explain once more what he had proposed. The man’s extortion attempt was caught on audio tape recording. He was arrested and charged with attempted grand larceny in the second degree.

The man asked the trial court for leave to inspect the minutes of the Grand Jury minutes. He then filed a motion to dismiss the indictment on the ground that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor was not legally sufficient to establish the elements of the crime of grand larceny.

Published on: February 24, 2013

Court Discusses Elements of Larceny

by Stephen Bilkis

A couple was on welfare. A New York Criminal Lawyer said they received a check from the New York Department of Social Services. They were entitled to a sum but they received a check that was over and above the sum they usually received.

On the back of the welfare check, there was an undertaking that they must inform the Department of Social Services if the check they received had a face value that was $5.00 more than the amount they used to receive.

The couple received the amount of $1500 more than they were entitled to. They cashed the checks even if they knew that the amounts were over and above the amount they were entitled to. The checks they cashed were received by them between 1969 and 1973.

Published on: February 23, 2013

Defendant Pleads Guilty to Grand Larceny Charges

by Stephen Bilkis

A man was charged with grand larceny for having taken a car from its owner. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the car was valued at $500. The indictment stated that the man intended to deprive the owner of the car the use and benefit of the car. And when he took the car, he fully intended to use and operate the car for his own profit use and benefit. The indictment also alleged that the taking of the car was without the consent of the owner of the car.

The man pleaded guilty to the charge of grand larceny. The man’s plea of guilt was made after he was duly advised by the court that he had a right to be represented by a lawyer of his choice and if he could not afford a lawyer, one can be provided for him. Even when he did not have any lawyer present, the man still pleaded guilty. The trial court sentenced the accused to imprisonment for not less than five years and not more than ten years spent in hard labor.

The accused then filed a motion to vacate his conviction. This time, he asked for a lawyer to be provided for him. A private lawyer was appointed to defend him pro bono. The lawyer asked for an adjournment so that he can prepare a brief of his arguments to support the motion to vacate the man’s conviction for grand larceny. The adjournment was granted. The lawyer for the man filed a brief and trial was scheduled. No testimony was offered during the hearing.

Published on: February 22, 2013

Defendant Claims the People Failed to Establish Burden of Proof in Larceny Case

by Stephen Bilkis

This is an appeal by defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County, rendered April 21, 1976, convicting him of grand larceny in the second degree (13 counts) and grand larceny in the third degree (2 counts), upon a jury verdict, and sentencing him to indeterminate terms of imprisonment with a maximum of seven years on each of the counts of grand larceny in the second degree, and to indeterminate terms of imprisonment with a maximum of four years on each count of grand larceny in the third degree, the sentences on all counts to run consecutively.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said that, defendant’s convictions are based upon the taking of money from various individuals from March, 1972 to February, 1974 in connection with an investment scheme, commonly referred to as a “Pyramid Scheme”. The prosecution proceeded under a theory of larceny by false promise, pursuant to section 155.05 of the Penal Law. A Suffolk Grand Larceny Lawyer said that, defendant’s primary contention on appeal is that the People failed to sustain their burden of proving this particular type of larceny, in that the representations made by him and his agents to the witnesses, as to how their money would be invested, were in fact carried out. Defendant contends that he at all times intended to fulfill his promises as to the investment plan and was merely a victim of some “bad investments”.

The issue in this case is whether the people failed to sustain their burden of proving the particular type of grand larceny.

Published on: February 5, 2013

Court Sentences Defendant to Judicial Diversion Program

by Stephen Bilkis

The defendant was charged with several counts of criminal possession of a forged instrument, grand larceny and scheme to defraud. The parties to the case put in issue the eligibility of the accused for judicial diversion. The defendant argued that he is entitled for the judicial diversion program since he was indicted with crime of grand larceny where such offense is included in the list for the statute to be eligible for such program and none of the other crimes he was charged were considered exclusions to the said program. The respondent questioned the felon’s eligibility because only one of the several counts of charges filed against him rendered him eligible for the judicial diversion.

The statute listed down the specific exceptions to being an “eligible defendant,” to wit, “any defendant convicted of a violent felony offense, any other offense for which a merit time allowance is not available, or a class A drug felony within the preceding ten years. Also listed as an exception is that any defendant who has previously been adjudicated a second violent felony offender or a persistent violent offender.” A New York Criminal Lawyer said such exclusions to warrant denial of being eligible for judicial diversion were not applicable to the case of the accused.

Considering that the simple and clear language of the law lead to the conclusion by the Court that the defendant was not caused to be ineligible for the program simply because he was charged with other offenses in the indictment, which was not listed in the statute entitled to the judicial diversion. Although the statutory act sets forth particular circumstances that would make a person ineligible, it failed to indicate that the charges against the defendant are mutually exclusive with the qualifying offenses or the inclusion of non-qualifying offenses in the indictment would subject the accused to ineligibility.

Published on: February 1, 2013

Defendant to Multiple Criminal Charges was a Police Officer

by Stephen Bilkis

The defendant was charged with several crimes and was found guilty for the commission of said crimes that included grand larceny, bribery receiving, official misconduct, and sale of illegal drug, criminal possession of stolen property and unlawfully disposing of a weapon. The accused who was a police officer, being accompanied by another individual, threatened a person that, if the latter did not turn over gun and money he owned, he will be arrested. It was also averred that the appellant took possession of marihuana from an individual whom he did not arrest and sold said marihuana to another. And lastly, it was contended that the indicted police failed to voucher a stolen revolver in his possession, but instead gave it to another without authority. Thus, an appeal was filed before the court to resolve the issue of his conviction to said crimes.

The issues of the appeal were the defendant’s indictment of possession of stolen property and unlawfully disposing the same and the crimes of sale of illegal drug. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the surrounding circumstances of the alleged felony was that the police officer asked another law enforcer, who was an undercover agent of the internal affairs, to keep the “throwaway gun” in his behalf for fear of his possible detention due to the investigations about his police activities being conducted at that time. Although evidence was presented to prove that the subject gun was a stolen property, it cannot show that the convicted police officer had knowledge of the fact that it was indeed a stolen gun. As provided in the statute, the indispensible element for the crime of criminal possession of stolen property was the actual knowledge of the accused that the gun in issue was a subject of theft. This was reiterated in the case of the Supreme Court, to wit “the gravamen of Criminal Possession of Stolen Property is possession of stolen property with knowledge of its stolen character. The element of knowledge of the stolen character of the property is essential.” As such, evidence must be presented before the jury to establish the element of knowledge of the stolen character of the gun by the defendant, otherwise, an indictment for that criminal offense may not stand. No direct evidence was shown to the grand jury to ascertain that the appellant had knowledge that the gun was stolen.

It was noted by the court that there was no instruction given to the jury for considering circumstantial evidence in relation to the crime in question. As decided in several jurisprudence, “the prosecutor wholly failed to instruct the jury as to the requirements of legal insufficiency in a circumstantial evidence case… the failure to instruct the jury on the standard to be applied deprives of legal significance the factual determination implicit in the indictment.”