People v. Besser, 96 N.Y.2d 141 (2001)
In an enterprise corruption prosecution, the accomplice corroboration rule (CPL 60.22[1]) requires only independent evidence tending to connect the defendant to the offense of enterprise corruption, not separate corroboration for each predicate criminal act.
Summary
Defendants Besser and Ciauri were convicted of enterprise corruption based on multiple predicate criminal acts. On appeal, they argued that the accomplice testimony used to prove each predicate act required independent corroboration. The New York Court of Appeals held that CPL 60.22(1) requires only that there be independent corroborative evidence tending to connect the defendant to the overall offense of enterprise corruption, not to each individual predicate act. The Court reasoned that the ‘offense’ is enterprise corruption, not the underlying acts, and thus the corroboration requirement is satisfied by a link to the enterprise.
Facts
James Besser and Jerry Ciauri, along with others, were indicted on enterprise corruption charges. The indictment alleged 62 pattern criminal acts in furtherance of an organized crime family’s activities between 1983 and 1993. Besser and Ciauri were charged with multiple pattern acts, including robbery, conspiracy to commit murder, grand larceny, and coercion. The evidence showed the crime family engaged in various illegal schemes like bookmaking, loansharking, and credit card fraud.
Procedural History
Besser and Ciauri were jointly tried and convicted of enterprise corruption. The Appellate Division affirmed their convictions. A judge of the New York Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal, and the Court of Appeals then affirmed the Appellate Division’s decision.
Issue(s)
Whether, in an enterprise corruption prosecution, the accomplice corroboration rule (CPL 60.22[1]) requires independent evidence tending to connect the defendant to each specific pattern criminal act, or whether it is sufficient for there to be independent evidence tending to connect the defendant to the overall offense of enterprise corruption.
Holding
No, because CPL 60.22(1) requires only independent evidence tending to connect the defendant to the offense charged, which in this case is enterprise corruption, not the individual pattern acts that make up the offense.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court reasoned that Penal Law § 10.00(1) defines an “offense” as conduct for which a sentence of imprisonment or a fine is provided. While enterprise corruption requires proof of at least three pattern acts, those acts themselves are not offenses that carry separate sentences. The “offense” is the overarching crime of enterprise corruption, which involves participation in a criminal enterprise through a pattern of criminal activity. The Court emphasized that the purpose of the enterprise corruption statute is to target the unique harm caused by complex criminal organizations, not merely to punish individual criminal acts already covered by other Penal Law provisions. The court noted the jury must find the defendant committed the acts to participate in an ascertainable criminal enterprise. Quoting CPL 60.22(1), the court stated that a “defendant may not be convicted of any offense upon the testimony of an accomplice unsupported by corroborative evidence tending to connect the defendant with the commission of such offense”. Here, the offense is enterprise corruption. The court also found sufficient independent proof linking the defendants to the crime family, including testimony from non-accomplice witnesses, documentary evidence placing defendants at a “safe house,” and telephone records corroborating accomplice accounts of communications.