People v. Medina, 16 N.Y.3d 95 (2010)
In larceny-related crimes, a trial court’s failure to provide the statutory definitions of “deprive” and “appropriate” to the jury, when those terms are essential to understanding larcenous intent, constitutes reversible error if it creates a likelihood of confusion and prejudices the defendant.
Summary
Medina, a DEA informant, was convicted of first-degree robbery. During jury deliberations, the jury expressed confusion about the meaning of intent. The trial court had not provided the statutory definitions of “deprive” and “appropriate,” which are components of larcenous intent. The New York Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the failure to define these terms was reversible error because the jury’s notes showed they struggled with the concept of intent, and the omission created a likelihood of confusion regarding whether Medina intended to permanently deprive the victim of property.
Facts
Medina, a paid DEA informant, participated in an unauthorized break-in at Jose Oleaga’s home. During the incident, Medina took Pena’s cell phone. Pena and Oleaga later claimed several thousand dollars were missing. Medina was arrested and told police conflicting stories, initially claiming he was trying to stop a robbery, then admitting he was offered money to participate. He implicated others, including Nelson Guerrero, whom he had previously informed on.
Procedural History
Medina was indicted on multiple counts, including first-degree robbery. He was convicted of first-degree robbery. The Appellate Division upheld the conviction, but the Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division’s order and ordered a new trial, holding that the failure to instruct the jury on the statutory definitions of “deprive” and “appropriate” was reversible error.
Issue(s)
Whether the trial court’s failure to charge the jury with the statutory definition of “appropriate” and/or “deprive,” which forms part of the definition of larcenous intent, is reversible error.
Holding
Yes, because the omission of the definition of “appropriate” and/or “deprive” did not adequately convey the meaning of intent to the jury and instead created a great likelihood of confusion such that the degree of precision required for a jury charge was not met.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals held that the failure to define “deprive” and “appropriate” was reversible error. The Court emphasized that, based on prior precedent (People v. Blacknall), omission of these definitions “could have misled the jury into thinking that any withholding, permanent or temporary, constituted larceny.” The court highlighted that the concepts of “deprive” and “appropriate” are essential to defining larcenous intent because they “ ‘connote a purpose … to exert permanent or virtually permanent control over the property taken, or to cause permanent or virtually permanent loss to the owner of the possession and use thereof’ ” (quoting People v. Jennings). The court found that the jury’s notes during deliberations indicated confusion about intent, demonstrating that the omission was not harmless. The court explicitly stated: “in this case, no such speculation is necessary as the jury’s confusion concerning the concept of intent is evident from its own messages to the court during deliberations. Taken together with the facts underlying the conviction in this case, we find that the jury notes provide a clear basis for our conclusion that the court’s failure to define ‘appropriate’ and/or ‘deprive’ was not harmless.” The court noted that it is critical that the jury understands whether the defendant intended to permanently deprive the victims of their property. Because of this failure, the court reversed the conviction.