People v. Zona
14 N.Y.3d 488
Decided on May 6, 2010
Issue:
Was Defendant Entitled to a Claim of Right Jury Instruction
Whether 1) the evidence presented at defendant Zona’s trial supported a good faith claim of right to jury instruction, and 2) whether the County Court erred when it denied the defendant’s request for a specific jury charge on the claim of right defense.
Consult with a New York Criminal Appeals Lawyer. Call 1-800-APPEALS
Holding:
Evidence Supported Defendant’s Entitlement to Assert Claim of Right
The Court of Appeals held 1) that defendant was entitled to assert the claim of right defense, and 2) the court erred in denying him this request.
Facts:
In 2005, defendant was told by Jim Larson, one of the highest ranking members of the Seneca County Sheriff’s Department, to transfer property from one warehouse to another. The bulk of the property stored in the warehouse was described as “old,” “wrecked,” “surplus stuff,” a “lot of junk.” According to defendant, Larson told him that he was taking home a canoe and that the others could take whatever they wanted. Zona took five new tires, a boat that contained a bullet hole, and a filing cabinet. In addition to the canoe, Larson took some old military lights and an electric mower. Two other sheriffs also took canoes.
Defendant then traded in the five tires he removed from the warehouse for a $375 credit toward a set of four B.F. Goodrich tires from a tire shop. Defendant told his colleague that he was thinking about buying the B.F. Goodrich tires and the colleague wondered how he was able to afford such expensive tires. Zona told his colleague that the tire shop was giving him a good deal because he solved several bad check cases for the shop. The shop thereafter sold four of the tires it had acquired from defendant.
Defendant later spoke with a coworker who told him that Larson did not have the authority to tell the others that they could take items from the warehouse, so the items needed to be put back. Zona promptly returned the boat and filing cabinet, and attempted to repurchase the tires he had traded in, but learned they’d already been sold. He bought comparable replacement tires and placed them in the storage facility. Shortly after, a fire broke out in the new warehouse, and defendant, one of four individuals who had keys to the facility, cooperated with several investigators who collected statements.
Following a lengthy investigation, defendant was indicted for one count of petit larceny (Penal Law § 155.25). Prior to trial, he requested a dismissal of the indictment. Defendant argued that he honestly believed that he could take the property and that the People’s failure to properly instruct the jury on the good faith claim of right defense unfairly prejudiced him (Penal Law § 155.15 [1]). County Court denied the motion, holding that the claim of right defense was inapplicable because defendant could not assert that he had at one time owned or possessed the property procured from the storage facility. The jury found defendant guilty of petit larceny. The Appellate Division reversed defendant’s conviction and ordered a new trial, concluding that a reasonable view of the evidence supported a good faith claim of right to the property removed from the warehouse.
Analysis:
Penal Law § 155.15 (1)
Penal Law § 155.15 (1) provides that “in any prosecution for larceny committed by trespassory taking or embezzlement, it is an affirmative defense that the property was appropriated under a claim of right made in good faith.” In evaluating the constitutionality of this statute, however, the Court of Appeals has held that the good faith claim of right is properly a defense, not an affirmative defense, thus the People “have the burden of disproving such defense beyond a reasonable doubt” (Penal Law § 25.00[1]; see People v. Green (5 NY3d 538, 542 [2005]).
In deciding whether to instruct a jury on a claimed defense, the court must view the evidence adduced at trial in the light most favorable to the defendant, and failure to do constitutes reversible error. The Court of Appeals held that there was evidence in the record to support defendant’s good faith claim of right defense, as one of the highest ranking officials in the Seneca County Sheriff’s Department gave defendant and his colleagues permission to take whatever property they wanted from the warehouse, and Larson took several items for himself. The Court also rejects the People’s argument that because defendant lied to his coworker about the tires, and because he did not previously own or possess the property at issue, he cannot assert the claim of right defense. The Court explains that nothing in the language of Penal Law § 155.15 (1) requires the court to interpret that defense so narrowly. The People are entitled, of course, to highlight inconsistencies in the evidence, but this only raises issues of fact and does not relieve a trial judge’s obligation to instruct the jury on a defense if the change would otherwise be supported by the evidence (People v. Butts, 72 NY2d 746, 750 [1988]). The evidence supported defendant’s requested charge, and therefore the jury should have had the opportunity to consider this defense during deliberations. The order of the Appellate Division was therefore affirmed—defendant’s conviction was reversed and a new trial ordered.
To Speak to a Federal Criminal Appeals Lawyer Call 1-800-APPEALS (1-800-277-3257)