New York Law Review

Tag: Possession of Stolen Property

  • People v. Williams, 62 N.Y.2d 765 (1984): Permissible Inference from Recent and Exclusive Possession of Stolen Property

    People v. Williams, 62 N.Y.2d 765 (1984)

    When the circumstances indicate the defendant was either guilty of stealing the property or not guilty at all, a charge on recent and exclusive possession is appropriate, and there is no need to charge the jury on the separate crime of possession of stolen property.

    Summary

    The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division’s order, holding that the trial court’s charge on recent and exclusive possession was not erroneous because the evidence presented at trial indicated the defendant was either guilty of stealing from the complainant or not guilty at all. The Court distinguished this case from cases where a reasonable view of the evidence could support a conviction for possession of stolen property without also finding the defendant guilty of the theft itself. Furthermore, the court found the identification evidence sufficient to present a jury question and determined that the defendant’s statement at the time of arrest was spontaneous and admissible.

    Facts

    The complainant was robbed, and during a chase, the officers and complainant briefly lost sight of the defendant. The complainant identified the person being chased to the police as the robber, and the officer identified the apprehended person as the person pointed out to him. The defendant was found to be in possession of the complainant’s property. At the time of the arrest, the defendant made a statement that the court later deemed spontaneous.

    Procedural History

    The defendant was convicted at trial. The Appellate Division affirmed the conviction. The case was then appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.

    Issue(s)

    1. Whether the trial court erred in its charge to the jury regarding recent and exclusive possession of stolen property.
    2. Whether the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to establish identification of the defendant as the perpetrator.
    3. Whether the statement made by the defendant at the time of arrest was admissible.

    Holding

    1. No, because the circumstances of the case indicated that the defendant was either guilty of stealing from the complainant or guilty of nothing, making a separate charge on possession of stolen property unnecessary.
    2. Yes, because the complainant pointed out the person being chased to the police as the robber, and the officer identified the apprehended person as the person pointed out to him, and that together with the defendant’s possession of complainant’s property was sufficient to present a jury issue on identification.
    3. Yes, because the statement was spontaneous, resulting from the officer’s response to the defendant’s question, and that response was a simple statement of fact, not provocative in any sense.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The Court reasoned that the charge on recent and exclusive possession was not error because the evidence suggested the defendant was either guilty of stealing or not guilty at all. The Court distinguished the case from People v. Baskerville, where there was a reasonable view of the evidence under which the defendant could be guilty of possession of stolen property without being guilty of the theft itself. Here, no such view existed. Regarding identification, the Court found the complainant’s identification of the defendant during the chase, coupled with the defendant’s possession of the stolen property, sufficient to present a jury question. Finally, the Court determined that the defendant’s statement at the time of arrest was spontaneous and admissible because it resulted from the officer’s non-provocative response to the defendant’s question. The court stated that the officer’s response was simply “a simple statement of fact, not provocative in any sense.” The Court found no merit in the defendant’s remaining contentions, affirming the Appellate Division’s order.

  • People v. Baskerville, 60 N.Y.2d 374 (1983): Instructing Juries on Inferences from Possession of Stolen Property

    People v. Baskerville, 60 N.Y.2d 374 (1983)

    When a defendant is found in possession of recently stolen property, the jury instruction regarding inferences of guilt must be tailored to the specific facts of the case, allowing the jury to determine whether the defendant was the thief or merely a receiver of stolen goods.

    Summary

    Baskerville was convicted of robbery and criminal possession of stolen property. The prosecution stemmed from a bank robbery where the perpetrator displayed what appeared to be a firearm. Shortly after the robbery, Baskerville made a large cash purchase using bills with bank wrappers traced to the robbery. At trial, Baskerville claimed the money was from a loan shark. The trial court instructed the jury that recent possession of stolen property, if unexplained or falsely explained, justifies the inference that the possessor is the criminal. The New York Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the jury instruction was erroneous because it did not allow the jury to consider whether Baskerville was the robber or merely in possession of stolen property.

    Facts

    On April 11, 1981, a U.S. Air Force base exchange was robbed. The robber stole nearly $30,000 and appeared to be armed with a firearm wrapped in a towel. Within hours, Baskerville, an airman, paid a car dealer almost $6,000 in cash, using money still bundled in bank wrappers traced to the exchange. A search of Baskerville’s belongings revealed additional cash, a plastic bag matching those used in the robbery, and clothing matching witness descriptions. Initially, Baskerville claimed the money came from an accident settlement, but later stated he borrowed it from a loanshark.

    Procedural History

    Baskerville was convicted of first-degree robbery and first-degree criminal possession of stolen property. The Appellate Division affirmed the convictions. Baskerville appealed to the New York Court of Appeals, arguing the jury instructions were improper. The Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division’s order and remanded for a new trial.

    Issue(s)

    1. Whether the trial court erred in instructing the jury that unexplained or falsely explained possession of recently stolen property justifies the inference that the possessor is the criminal, without providing further guidance on whether the defendant could be found guilty of robbery or merely possession of stolen property.

    Holding

    1. Yes, because the jury instruction failed to relate the inference from possession of stolen property to the specific facts of the case, and did not allow the jury to consider that Baskerville could be found guilty of either robbery or possession of stolen property.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The Court of Appeals held that the trial court’s instruction, while quoting precedent from People v. Galbo, was misleading in the context of Baskerville’s case. The Court emphasized that a recent possession charge must be tailored to the facts. Judge Meyer noted, “But the words charged to the jury in the present case — ‘that the possessor is the criminal’ — do no more… than fix ‘the identity of the offender. There remains the question of the nature of his offense. Here again the facts must shape the inference. Is the guilty possessor the thief, or is he a receiver of stolen goods?’” The court reasoned that where evidence suggests the defendant could be either the thief or a receiver of stolen property, the jury must be instructed to consider both possibilities. The court acknowledged the ancient legal principle that unexplained possession of recently stolen property can support an inference of guilt. However, it stressed that the instruction must permit the jury to determine the nature of the offense. Since the jury could have reasonably concluded that Baskerville merely received the stolen money after the robbery, the trial court’s failure to properly instruct the jury constituted reversible error. The court stated: “To charge only that from unexplained or falsely explained possession of part of the robbery proceeds the jury could infer that defendant was the criminal without explaining to them further that defendant, if guilty at all, could be found guilty of either robbery or possession of stolen property was reversible error.”