6 N.Y.3d 727 (2005)

A defendant is entitled to a jury instruction on a lesser included offense if there is a reasonable view of the evidence that would support a finding that the defendant committed the lesser offense but not the greater offense.

Summary

James Devonish was convicted of second-degree burglary. At trial, the defense requested a jury instruction on the lesser included offense of second-degree criminal trespass, which the trial court denied. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the defendant was entitled to the lesser included offense instruction because a reasonable view of the evidence suggested he may have committed criminal trespass (entering unlawfully) without the intent to commit a crime therein, as required for burglary. The evidence showed he was found in a locked church with tools that might have belonged to someone else who stored them there, thus creating a question as to whether he possessed the tools (and criminal intent) upon entry.

Facts

Defendant James Devonish was found inside a locked church building. He had a bag containing tools commonly used by burglars.

A witness, a general contractor for the church, testified that he stored his tools in the church basement.

The contractor identified one of the tools found in Devonish’s possession as his “for sure,” and indicated the others might have been his as well.

Procedural History

The defendant was convicted of burglary in the second degree in the trial court.

He appealed, arguing that the trial court erred in refusing to instruct the jury on the lesser included offense of criminal trespass in the second degree.

The Appellate Division affirmed the conviction.

The New York Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division’s order.

Issue(s)

Whether the trial court erred in refusing the defendant’s request to charge the jury with the lesser included offense of criminal trespass in the second degree.

Holding

Yes, because a reasonable view of the evidence would permit the jury to conclude that the defendant committed the lesser offense (criminal trespass) but not the greater offense (burglary).

Court’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeals reasoned that, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the defendant, the jury could have inferred that the defendant did not bring the tools with him into the church.

The court noted that the contractor’s testimony indicated the tools could have already been in the church. Thus, the evidence could have failed to establish that the defendant had the requisite criminal intent (to commit a crime inside) at the time of entry, a necessary element of burglary.

The court cited People v. Scarborough, 49 N.Y.2d 364, 373 (1980), emphasizing that if “some reasonable view of the evidence would support a finding that the defendant committed such lesser offense but did not commit the greater, it is error to refuse to submit such lesser offense.”

Because the jury could have reasonably concluded that the defendant entered the church unlawfully (trespass) but without the intent to commit a crime therein (burglary), the defendant was entitled to the lesser included offense instruction.

The Court stated that “the jury was entitled to infer that defendant did not bring the tools with him to the church, and thus that the evidence failed to show that he had criminal intent at the time of entry”.