People v. Teitelbaum, 450 N.Y.S.2d 983 (1982)

Criminal facilitation requires that the facilitator’s aid be rendered while the underlying crime is still in progress; assistance provided after the principal crime is complete does not constitute criminal facilitation.

Summary

This case addresses the temporal relationship between the commission of a crime and the act of criminal facilitation. The New York Court of Appeals held that a lawyer could not be convicted of criminal facilitation for assisting an Assistant District Attorney in a bribery scheme because the assistance occurred after the ADA had already accepted the bribe. The court reasoned that the crime of bribe receiving was complete upon acceptance of the bribe, and any subsequent assistance could not have facilitated the commission of that crime. The dissent argued that the bribery scheme was ongoing and that the lawyer’s actions did, in fact, facilitate the overall criminal enterprise.

Facts

An Assistant District Attorney (ADA) solicited a bribe in exchange for influencing the outcome of a burglary prosecution. The ADA received $6,500 and later an additional $1,500 to pay a more compliant defense attorney, the defendant Teitelbaum, whom the ADA suggested be substituted as counsel. The ADA guaranteed a refund if the burglary defendant wasn’t kept out of jail. Teitelbaum was engaged by the ADA and did not disclose the amount he was paid. Teitelbaum was later convicted of criminal facilitation.

Procedural History

Teitelbaum was convicted of criminal facilitation in the trial court. The Appellate Division reversed the judgment of conviction, finding that Teitelbaum’s actions did not constitute criminal facilitation. The People appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.

Issue(s)

Whether a person can be convicted of criminal facilitation when the assistance rendered occurred after the principal actor had already committed the underlying crime.

Holding

No, because criminal facilitation requires that the facilitator provide assistance during the commission of the underlying felony. Once the felony is complete, any subsequent assistance cannot be considered facilitation.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeals reasoned that the crime of bribe receiving, as defined in Penal Law § 200.10, is complete when a public servant “solicits, accepts or agrees to accept any benefit…upon an agreement or understanding that his vote, opinion, judgment, action, decision or exercise of discretion as a public servant will thereby be influenced.” Since the ADA had already accepted the bribe before Teitelbaum was engaged, the court concluded that Teitelbaum’s actions could not have facilitated the commission of the crime of bribe receiving. The court emphasized the importance of the temporal relationship, stating that the facilitator’s actions must aid the principal actor in committing the felony. The court distinguished between aiding the commission of a crime and aiding a person who has already committed a crime. The dissent argued that the bribery scheme was an ongoing enterprise and that Teitelbaum’s assistance was integral to the overall plan, even if it occurred after the initial acceptance of the bribe. The dissent emphasized the language of the indictment, which spanned the connected events running from the crime’s inception through the date of the arrest. However, the majority adhered to a strict interpretation of the statute, focusing on the specific elements of the crime of bribe receiving and the timing of Teitelbaum’s involvement.