People v. Colasanti, 35 N.Y.2d 434 (1974)

The market value of stolen goods, even in an illegitimate market, can be used to determine the value of the property for purposes of grading criminal possession charges, particularly when the stolen goods have an equivalent in a legitimate market.

Summary

Colasanti was convicted of criminal possession of stolen property in the first degree after possessing approximately 600,000 stolen Librium pills (Libratabs). The pills had been distributed free of charge to hospitals and physicians for experimental use. The key issue was whether the prosecution adequately established that the value of the pills exceeded $1,500, the threshold for first-degree criminal possession. The Court of Appeals held that the market value of substitute pills with substantially the same chemical composition, which were being manufactured and marketed at the time of the theft, was relevant to determining the value of the stolen pills. The Court further reasoned that even the illegitimate market value could be considered and that the scale of the criminal operation, not market regulation, is the purpose of the statute.

Facts

Approximately 600,000 Librium pills (Libratabs) were stolen.
These pills had been originally distributed by the manufacturer to hospitals and physicians without charge for experimental use.
At the time of the theft, the manufacturer had recalled the experimental pills and was marketing substitute pills of substantially the same chemical composition.
The defendant requested $19,500 for the stolen pills.

Procedural History

The defendant was convicted of criminal possession of stolen property in the first degree.
The appeal focused on whether the prosecution established the value of the stolen property to be in excess of $1,500, which would justify the conviction.
The Appellate Division order was affirmed by the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals found that the prosecution had sufficiently proved the value of the stolen pills.

Issue(s)

Whether the prosecution established the value of the stolen pills to be in excess of $1,500, justifying a conviction for criminal possession of stolen property in the first degree, when the pills had no “market price” or “market value” at the time of original distribution because they were given away for experimental purposes.

Holding

Yes, because the market value of the substitute pills, which were equivalent in composition, cost of ingredients, function, and use, was relevant to establishing the current value of the recalled pills. Furthermore, even the illegitimate market value could be considered to assess the scale of the criminal operation.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court reasoned that the fact that the pills were originally distributed free of charge does not diminish their value to a thief. The key consideration is the value of the pills at the time they were possessed as stolen property. The court stated that the substitute pills being manufactured and marketed at the time were equivalent in composition, cost of ingredients, function, and use to the stolen pills. The court noted that this equivalence was strong evidence of equivalent market value. Further, the court found the defendant’s request of $19,500 for the stolen pills to be a “significant admission of value and confirmation of a market value even if that market be an illegitimate market.”

The Court explicitly stated that “the purpose of the statutes fixing the higher degrees of crime is not related to regulating the economic market but to assessing the scale of criminal operations by the persons charged with offenses under the statutes.” The court cited other cases, such as United States v. Tyers, which held that the underworld value of contraband may be used in determining value for the purposes of a larceny or criminal possession statute. Allowing defendants to specialize in stolen goods which had no value in a legitimate market would be an intolerable outcome. The court concluded that the prosecution’s proof established the market value of the stolen pills in accordance with subdivision 1 of section 155.20 of the Penal Law.