People v. Wing, 75 N.Y.2d 851 (1990)
A witness is not considered an accomplice requiring corroboration of their testimony if they are within the class of persons the statute at issue was designed to protect, and thus not subject to penal sanctions.
Summary
The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the defendant’s conviction for unlawfully dealing with a child. The court held that two underage teenagers who purchased beer through the defendant were not accomplices whose testimony required corroboration under CPL 60.22. The teenagers were the recipients of the alcohol, placing them within the protected class of individuals that Penal Law § 260.20(4) intended to safeguard. Because they were not subject to penal sanctions for their involvement, their testimony was admissible without corroboration. This case clarifies the definition of an accomplice and its relationship to statutes intended to protect specific classes of individuals.
Facts
Two teenagers, ages 16 and 17, asked the defendant, who was of legal age, to purchase beer for them. The teenagers drove the defendant to a supermarket and provided him with the money to buy two six-packs of beer. The defendant purchased the beer and gave it to the teenagers. Police later stopped the teenagers for a traffic violation and discovered the beer in their car. The teenagers informed the police that the defendant had purchased the beer for them.
Procedural History
The defendant was convicted in Village Court of two counts of unlawfully dealing with a child in violation of Penal Law § 260.20(4). The defendant moved to dismiss the charges, arguing that the teenagers were accomplices and their testimony required corroboration. The Village Court denied the motion. The County Court affirmed the conviction. The New York Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal.
Issue(s)
Whether the underage teenagers who provided money to the defendant to purchase alcohol for them are considered accomplices under CPL 60.22, requiring their testimony to be corroborated for the defendant’s conviction of unlawfully dealing with a child to stand.
Holding
No, because the teenagers, as recipients of the alcohol, fall within the class of persons that Penal Law § 260.20(4) was intended to protect and are therefore not subject to penal sanctions, thus, they are not accomplices whose testimony needs corroboration.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals reasoned that under CPL 60.22(2), an accomplice is a witness who may reasonably be considered to have participated in the offense charged or an offense based on the same facts. However, the court emphasized that to be deemed an accomplice, the witness must be