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. Pierre WILLIAMS, Defendant-Appellant.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Eduardo Padro, J.), rendered September 8, 2004, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of burglary in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 8 years, unanimously affirmed.
Defendant failed to preserve his present challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence (see People v. Padro, 75 N.Y.2d 820, 552 N.Y.S.2d 555, 551 N.E.2d 1233 [1990] ), and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review this claim, we would find that the verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence. The evidence supported the inference that when defendant unlawfully entered the victim's hospital room, he did so with intent to commit a crime. It is of no moment that the jury acquitted defendant of sexual abuse in the third degree. In the first place, that crime requires proof of a completed act, whereas burglary only requires an intent to commit a crime. Moreover, the People did not expressly limit themselves to the theory that sexual abuse was the intended crime (see People v. Goldsmith, 127 A.D.2d 293, 295-296, 515 N.Y.S.2d 321 [1987], lv. denied 70 N.Y.2d 711, 519 N.Y.S.2d 1046, 513 N.E.2d 1314 [1987] ).
The trial court also properly declined to charge criminal trespass in the second degree as a lesser included offense, since there was no reasonable view of the evidence, viewed in a light most favorable to defendant, upon which to find that defendant unlawfully entered the hospital room, but did so for a noncriminal purpose (see People v. Mongen, 157 A.D.2d 82, 555 N.Y.S.2d 260 [1990], appeal dismissed 76 N.Y.2d 1015, 565 N.Y.S.2d 764, 566 N.E.2d 1169 [1990] ).
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: March 15, 2007
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)