New York Court of Appeals, 2005

People v. Devonish

New York Court of Appeals · Decided December 15, 2005 · Kaye and Judges G.B. Smith, Ciparick, Rosenblatt, Graffeo, Read and R.S. Smith Concur in Memorandum

843 N.E.2d 1120; 6 N.Y.3d 727; 810 N.Y.S.2d 380 (North Eastern Reporter, Second Series)

Cases that cite this one

13 later published cases cite this decision.

Finigan v. Marshall (2d Cir. 2009)
People v. Orama (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2018)
People v. Desjardins (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
People v. Desjardins (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
People v. Simmons (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
People v. Simmons (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
People v. Kim (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2011)
People v. Rivera (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2010)
Positron Energy Resources v. Weckbacher, 07ca59 (3-12-2009) (Ohio Ct. App. 2009)
People v. Ryan (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2008)
People v. Hernandez (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2007)
People v. Olivera (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2007)
People v. White (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2006)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed and a new trial ordered.

Defendant was convicted of burglary in the second degree after he was found inside a locked church building with a bag containing the kinds of tools commonly used by burglars. A witness for the People, a general contractor for the church, testified that he stored his tools in the church basement and that one of the tools found in defendant’s possession was his for “sure,” and the others might have been. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to defendant (see People v Discala, 45 NY2d 38, 42 [1978]), the jury was entitled to infer that defendant did not bring the tools with him to the church, and thus that the evidence failed to show that he had criminal intent at the time of entry (see People v Scarborough, 49 NY2d 364, 373 [1980]). It was error to refuse defendant’s request that the jury be charged with the lesser included offense of criminal trespass in the second degree (CPL 300.50).

Chief Judge Kaye and Judges G.B. Smith, Ciparick, Rosenblatt, Graffeo, Read and R.S. Smith concur in memorandum.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order reversed, etc.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.