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. Islam ATAROUA, Defendant–Appellant.
Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (William I. Mogulescu, J. at suppression hearing; John W. Carter, J. at jury trial and sentencing), rendered July 27, 2016, convicting defendant of murder in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, and sentencing him to an aggregate term of 18 years to life, unanimously reversed, on the law, the conviction vacated, and the matter remanded for a new trial.
In connection with the larceny element of attempted robbery, the offense underlying the felony murder charge, the court, upon defense counsel's request, should have instructed the jury on the definition of “deprive” (Penal Law § 155.00[3][a]; see People v. Medina, 18 N.Y.3d 98, 936 N.Y.S.2d 608, 960 N.E.2d 377 [2011] ). The failure to so charge the jury as requested constitutes reversible error, since such omission “could have misled the jury into thinking that any withholding, permanent or temporary, constituted larceny” (People v. Blacknall, 63 N.Y.2d 912, 914, 483 N.Y.S.2d 206, 472 N.E.2d 1034 [1984] ). Indeed, “the concepts of ‘deprive’ and ‘appropriate’ ․ ‘are essential to a definition of larcenous intent’ and they ‘connote a purpose ․ to exert permanent or virtually permanent use thereof’ ” (People v. Medina, 18 N.Y.3d at 105, 936 N.Y.S.2d 608, 960 N.E.2d 377 quoting People v. Jennings, 69 N.Y.2d 103, 118, 512 N.Y.S.2d 652, 504 N.E.2d 1079 [1986] ). It is the function of the jury to determine whether defendant intended to rob the victim and permanently keep the property taken from him. By failing to give the requested charge, the court usurped that function.
While there are some cases in which the court's omission of the definition of a term or terms may constitute harmless error, under the facts of this case, the error was not harmless (Medina, 18 N.Y.3d at 105, 936 N.Y.S.2d 608, 960 N.E.2d 377).
In view of the foregoing, we need not reach the other issues raised by defendant on this appeal, except that we find that defendant's suppression motion was properly denied.
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.
Docket No: 7802
Decided: January 10, 2019
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)