People v. Miller
Opinion of the Court
sAppeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Roman, J.), rendered December 12, 1995, convicting him of criminal possession of stolen property in the third degree, unauthorized use of a motor vehicle in the third degree, and possession of burglar’s tools, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, and a new trial is ordered.
We agree with the trial court’s rejection as pretextual of the
There is no merit to the defendant’s claim that the trial court should have submitted the offenses of criminal possession of stolen property in the third degree and unauthorized use of a vehicle in the third degree to the jury in the alternative because they are inconsistent counts under CPL 300.30 (5). A guilty verdict on unauthorized use of a vehicle in the third degree does not necessarily negate a verdict of guilty on criminal possession of stolen property in the third degree, which requires the additional element of larcenous intent (see, People v Kirnon, 39 AD2d 666, affd 31 NY2d 877; People v Holder, 189 AD2d 783; People v Butler, 119 Misc 2d 1071).
In light of our determination, we do not address the defendant’s remaining contention. Thompson, J. P., Pizzuto, Friedmann and Krausman, JJ., concur.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.