People v. Rivera, 82 N.Y.2d 697 (1993)
To be convicted of criminal possession of stolen property, the prosecution must prove that the defendant exercised dominion and control over the property, mere presence is insufficient.
Summary
The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division’s order, holding that the evidence presented was insufficient to prove the defendant’s criminal possession of a stolen vehicle. While the defendant was aware the car was stolen, the prosecution failed to demonstrate that he exercised any dominion or control over it. The defendant was merely a passenger in the vehicle, and there was no evidence linking him to the theft or operation of the vehicle. The Court emphasized that “possess” requires more than physical presence; it necessitates the ability to exercise control over the property.
Facts
The defendant was found sitting in the passenger seat of a parked car. The car’s steering column was broken with exposed wires. Another individual occupied the driver’s seat. The driver’s side door lock and ignition switch were broken. A screwdriver was visible on the floor of the vehicle. The prosecution proved that the defendant knew the car was stolen.
Procedural History
The defendant was convicted of criminal possession of stolen property in the fourth degree. The Appellate Division reversed the conviction, finding insufficient evidence of possession. The People appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.
Issue(s)
Whether the defendant’s presence as a passenger in a stolen vehicle, with knowledge that it was stolen, is sufficient to establish criminal possession of stolen property under New York Penal Law § 10.00 (8).
Holding
No, because the prosecution failed to present evidence demonstrating that the defendant exercised dominion or control over the stolen vehicle.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals based its decision on the statutory definition of “possess” as defined in Penal Law § 10.00 (8), which requires either “physical possession or otherwise to exercise dominion or control over tangible property.” The Court found that the prosecution’s evidence failed to satisfy this requirement. The mere presence of the defendant in the passenger seat of the stolen vehicle, even with knowledge that it was stolen, did not equate to exercising dominion or control. The Court highlighted the lack of evidence connecting the defendant to the vehicle’s theft or operation.
The Court distinguished the defendant’s situation from scenarios where a defendant’s actions indicate control, such as driving the vehicle or having the keys. The Court cited prior cases, People v. Luter and People v. Gregory, reinforcing that mere presence is insufficient to establish possession. As the Court stated, “Here, there was no showing that defendant exercised dominion or control over the car… In these circumstances, defendant’s presence in the car cannot be equated with possession.” The absence of any evidence linking the defendant to the taking or operation of the vehicle was fatal to the prosecution’s case.