AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges

THE PEOPLE, ETC., appellant, v. ANTHONY ANTONELLI, respondent.

DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, the charge of burglary in the second degree contained in count one of the indictment is reinstated, and the matter is remitted to the County Court, Orange County, for further proceedings.

The County Court erred in reducing count one of the indictment charging burglary in the second degree to criminal trespass in the second degree. Viewing the evidence before the Grand Jury in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v. Manini, 79 N.Y.2d 561), we find that it was legally sufficient to support the charge of burglary in the second degree. The Grand Jury could properly infer the defendant's intent to commit some crime from the surrounding circumstances (see People v. Mahboubian, 74 N.Y.2d 174; People v. Mitchell, 231 A.D.2d 937; People v. Mazer, 208 A.D.2d 956; People v. Owens, 204 A.D.2d 1055; People v. Gates, 170 A.D.2d 971; People v. Daye, 150 A.D.2d 481).

We do not consider the defendant's alternative argument for affirmance of the order appealed from (see People v. Karp, 76 N.Y.2d 1006; People v. Goodfriend, 64 N.Y.2d 695). Further, we note that the defendant was not entitled to a copy of the Grand Jury minutes on this appeal (see Matter of Brown v. LaTorella, 229 A.D.2d 391).

FEUERSTEIN, J.P., SMITH, O'BRIEN and ADAMS, JJ., concur.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

PEOPLE v. ANTONELLI
(Dec 2, 2002)