People v. Borrero, 26 N.Y.2d 430 (1970)

Circumstantial evidence can establish the intent to use an instrument for an unlawful purpose in a charge of possession of burglar’s tools, even without direct proof of ownership of the property targeted.

Summary

This case addresses the level of proof required to convict someone for possession of burglar’s tools, specifically concerning intent. Borrero was observed prying at a car window with a screwdriver, and Lugo was seen using a wire to try to enter a car. The court held that while screwdrivers and wires are not inherently burglar’s tools, their use under suspicious circumstances can provide sufficient circumstantial evidence to infer intent to commit a crime, even if the prosecution doesn’t directly prove the defendant didn’t own the car. The court emphasized that the evidence, viewed through “common human experience,” must lead a reasonable person to conclude guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Facts

In Borrero, a detective saw Borrero using a screwdriver on a car vent window. After a brief conversation with another man, Borrero hid the screwdriver and walked away. He was arrested and found to possess heroin. In Lugo, Lugo and an accomplice were observed looking into cars. Lugo inserted a wire into a car window while his accomplice acted as a lookout. They stopped when people approached the car with keys and walked away. Lugo confessed to possessing the tool.

Procedural History

Borrero was convicted of possession of burglar’s tools and narcotics. The Appellate Term reversed the burglar’s tools conviction. Lugo was convicted of possession of burglar’s tools, and the Appellate Term affirmed.

Issue(s)

Whether circumstantial evidence, in the absence of direct proof of ownership of the targeted vehicle, can sufficiently establish the intent to use possessed tools in the commission of a larceny offense, thus warranting a conviction for possession of burglar’s tools under New York Penal Law § 140.35.

Holding

Yes, because the surrounding circumstances can reasonably lead to the inference that the defendant intended to use the tools for an unlawful purpose. In Borrero, the Appellate Term’s judgment was reversed and remitted for factual determination. In Lugo, the judgment was affirmed.

Court’s Reasoning

The court reasoned that while items like screwdrivers and wires are not inherently burglar’s tools, their use in suspicious circumstances can establish the necessary intent for a conviction under Penal Law § 140.35. The court acknowledged the standard for circumstantial evidence, stating that the hypothesis of guilt should flow naturally from the facts and be consistent with guilt and inconsistent with innocence. However, the court clarified that this test should not replace reasoned thought, quoting People v. Wachowicz, “In the end, it is a question whether common human experience would lead a reasonable man, putting his mind to it, to reject or accept the inferences asserted for the established facts.” The court distinguished these cases from mere possession, noting the defendants were essentially “caught in the act.” While direct proof of ownership is preferable, the court held that lack of ownership could be inferred from the circumstances. Regarding Borrero, the court stated that the defendant’s actions, including ceasing his actions and hiding the screwdriver, suggest intent to break into another’s car, as “common experience would suggest the owner of the car would have a locksmith or mechanic open the car, rather than pay the cost of a new window and its installation.” Regarding Lugo, the court found it “ludicrous” to believe his actions were consistent with innocence.