PEOPLE v. JACKSON (2009)

Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him following a bench trial of criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree (Penal Law § 165.40) and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree (§ 220.03). Defendant was acquitted of burglary in the third degree (§ 140.20). Viewing the evidence in light of the elements of criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree (see People v. Danielson, 9 N.Y.3d 342, 349, 849 N.Y.S.2d 480, 880 N.E.2d 1), we reject defendant's contention that the verdict with respect to that count is against the weight of the evidence (see generally People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495, 515 N.Y.S.2d 761, 508 N.E.2d 672). “[D]efendant's knowledge that property is stolen may be proven circumstantially, and the unexplained or falsely explained recent exclusive possession of the fruits of a crime allows a [trier of fact] to draw a permissible inference that defendant knew the property was stolen” (People v. Landfair, 191 A.D.2d 825, 826, 594 N.Y.S.2d 893, lv denied 81 N.Y.2d 1015, 600 N.Y.S.2d 203, 616 N.E.2d 860; see People v. Jackson, 282 A.D.2d 830, 832-833, 725 N.Y.S.2d 406, lv denied 96 N.Y.2d 902, 730 N.Y.S.2d 800, 756 N.E.2d 88). We thus conclude that Supreme Court was entitled to infer from the circumstantial evidence presented by the People that defendant knowingly possessed stolen property for his own benefit (see § 165.40; see generally People v. Zorcik, 67 N.Y.2d 670, 671, 499 N.Y.S.2d 674, 490 N.E.2d 541), and it cannot be said that the court failed to give the evidence the weight it should be accorded (see generally Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d at 495, 515 N.Y.S.2d 761, 508 N.E.2d 672).

Defendant failed to preserve for our review his further contention that the verdict is inconsistent insofar as the court found him guilty of criminal possession of stolen property based on his possession of a bicycle but acquitted him of the burglary during which that bicycle was stolen (see generally People v. Alfaro, 66 N.Y.2d 985, 987, 499 N.Y.S.2d 378, 489 N.E.2d 1280; People v. Putt, 303 A.D.2d 992, 757 N.Y.S.2d 661). We decline to exercise our power to review that contention as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see CPL 470.15[6][a] ).

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

MEMORANDUM: