People v. Palmer, 68 N.Y.2d 831 (1986)
Simultaneous possession of stolen property belonging to different owners can be considered a single offense, and the value of the stolen property can be aggregated to satisfy the monetary threshold for a higher degree of the crime.
Summary
The New York Court of Appeals addressed whether the value of stolen property from multiple owners could be aggregated to elevate the charge of criminal possession of stolen property. The defendant was convicted of criminal possession of stolen property in the second degree for possessing multiple stolen radar detectors, each belonging to a different owner. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, holding that the simultaneous possession of stolen property, regardless of the number of owners, constitutes a single offense, and the aggregate value can be used to determine the degree of the crime.
Facts
The defendant was charged with criminal possession of stolen property after being found in possession of stolen radar detectors. The detectors belonged to four different owners. The aggregate value of the radar detectors exceeded $250, which, under the law at the time, constituted criminal possession of stolen property in the second degree. The prosecution did not allege a common scheme or plan connecting the thefts from the four owners.
Procedural History
The defendant was convicted in Supreme Court. Before trial, the defendant moved to dismiss the first count of the indictment, arguing it was duplicitous. The Supreme Court denied the motion. The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court’s decision, relying on People v. Loret. The New York Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal and affirmed the Appellate Division’s order.
Issue(s)
Whether the value of stolen property possessed simultaneously but belonging to different owners can be aggregated to meet the monetary threshold for a higher degree of the crime of criminal possession of stolen property, even in the absence of a common scheme or plan.
Holding
Yes, because the gravamen of the offense is the knowing possession of stolen property; the number of owners is not a determining factor in defining the crime.
Court’s Reasoning
The court reasoned that the key element of the crime is the knowing possession of stolen property, with the intent to benefit oneself or impede recovery by the owner. The court invoked General Construction Law § 35, which states that words in the singular include the plural, unless the context indicates otherwise. The Court found no indication in the legislative history or the language of Penal Law § 165.45 that a different meaning was intended. The court distinguished this situation from larceny, where separate thefts from different persons cannot be combined unless committed under a single intent and common plan. The court emphasized that unlike larceny, the simultaneous possession of stolen goods from multiple owners can be considered one offense, allowing for the aggregation of value. "[T]he gravamen of the offense is the knowing possession of stolen property and the character of the act is not affected by the fact that the property may have belonged to several owners rather than one." The court also noted that the defendant’s claim regarding a jury instruction on a lesser included offense was unpreserved due to the failure of the defendant’s counsel to request such a charge.