People v. Capparelli, 78 N.Y.2d 852 (1991)
A defendant can be convicted of larceny based on inducing the creation of a joint bank account with a false promise, even if the unauthorized withdrawals from the account themselves would not constitute larceny.
Summary
The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the defendant’s conviction for second-degree larceny. The evidence showed the defendant induced his elderly great-aunt to create a joint money market account with him by falsely promising to manage her finances. He then withdrew the funds and used them for his own high-risk investments. The Court held that the jury was justified in finding that the defendant never intended to fulfill his promise and that the larcenous creation of the joint account, not merely the withdrawals, was the basis for his conviction. The Court emphasized the facts and circumstances had to be wholly consistent with guilt to a moral certainty.
Facts
In September 1982, the defendant’s 84-year-old great-aunt asked him to manage her financial affairs, and he agreed. In October, she executed a will leaving him one-third of her estate. Two months later, $180,000 was withdrawn from her savings account and deposited into a new money market account listing both the defendant and his great-aunt as joint owners. Only the defendant’s address was on the account, and he alone received the monthly statements. Over the next 14 months, the defendant withdrew most of the money and deposited it into a high-risk brokerage account in his name. He moved out of state six months after the joint account was opened, leaving his great-aunt’s finances in the hands of another relative. Most of the money was lost.
Procedural History
The defendant was indicted for first-degree criminal possession of stolen property and second-degree larceny. After a jury trial, he was convicted of second-degree larceny. The Appellate Division affirmed the conviction. The New York Court of Appeals then reviewed the case.
Issue(s)
Whether the People presented sufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant induced his great-aunt to establish the joint account by virtue of a false promise.
Holding
Yes, because the jury’s finding of larcenous intent flowed naturally and reasonably from the array of facts and circumstances and excluded to a moral certainty every hypothesis except the defendant’s guilt.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court applied Penal Law § 155.05 (2)(d), which requires that a finding of intent in larceny based on false promise be based on evidence