Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. John GUILLIARD, Defendant-Appellant.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Daniel FitzGerald, J.), rendered October 4, 2000, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of grand larceny in the third degree, and sentencing him to a term of 2 1/313 to 7 years, unanimously affirmed.
Since defendant first raised his claim of insufficient corroboration of accomplice testimony long after jury deliberations had begun, he failed to preserve that claim (see People v. Gray, 86 N.Y.2d 10, 20-21, 629 N.Y.S.2d 173, 652 N.E.2d 919), and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review this claim, we would find that the evidence was legally sufficient. The accomplice testimony was properly corroborated by independent evidence tending to connect defendant to the crime (see People v. Breland, 83 N.Y.2d 286, 292-293, 609 N.Y.S.2d 571, 631 N.E.2d 577; People v. Morhouse, 21 N.Y.2d 66, 74-75, 286 N.Y.S.2d 657, 233 N.E.2d 705). In this case involving fraudulent issuance of public assistance benefits, the documentary evidence confirmed the accomplices' testimony that they met with defendant, their assigned “eligibility specialist,” shortly before the fraudulent payments at issue were made and that defendant took favorable action with respect to the their requests for benefits shortly before they received the fraudulent payments. Thus, the documentary evidence was in such harmony with the accomplice-clients' accounts of the events leading to the thefts themselves as to assure their reliability and to provide the necessary corroboration. In the circumstances of this case, the fraud had to have been committed with the assistance of an employee knowledgeable about the clients' cases, and the documentary evidence established that the accomplice-clients were not merely part of defendant's large caseload, but that he had an active relationship with them at the time of the fraudulent payments.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: October 28, 2003
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)