1 No. 89
The People &c.,
Respondent,
v.
Donald Robinson,
Appellant.
_________________________________________________________________
2000 NY Int. 86
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication
in the New York Reports.
Andrew E. Abraham, for appellant.
Floyd R. Engelhardt, for respondent.
_________________________________________________________________
CIPARICK, J.:
The issue presented by this appeal is whether the auto stripping
statute, which prohibits the removal or intentional destruction or
defacing of any part of a vehicle, encompasses defendant's conduct of
breaking a car window in order to steal property within the vehicle.
We conclude that it does.
On October 12, 1995, at approximately 9:00 a.m., Police Officer Joseph
Coviello was patrolling the area of Riverside Drive between West 163rd
and 165th Streets in Manhattan when he noticed defendant sitting on a
park bench, scanning a group of parked cars. While "still looking
around," defendant rose from the bench and approached several of the
cars. He bumped three of the cars with his body, setting off an alarm
on the third, then returned to the bench and continued to look around.
The officer watched defendant as he again approached a parked car.
This time, defendant swung his arm at the rear passenger side of the
car. Officer Coviello heard glass shatter and saw defendant briefly
bend down. Seconds later, defendant reappeared and went to the rear of
the car, where he opened the trunk. After rummaging through the trunk,
defendant closed it and walked away.
The officer immediately radioed defendant's description and location
to police officers stationed nearby. Following a short chase, the
officers apprehended defendant and, upon his arrest, recovered stolen
bridge tokens, as well as some loose change which defendant admitted
was not his. When Officer Coviello returned to inspect the vehicle, he
saw that the rear passenger window had been shattered, the glove
SNIPPETS:
The People &c., Respondent, v. Donald Robinson, Appellant.
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the New York
The issue presented by this appeal is whether the auto stripping statute, which prohibits the
While "still looking around," defendant rose from the bench and approached several of the
The officer watched defendant as he again approached a parked car.
When Officer Coviello returned to inspect the vehicle, he saw that the rear passenger window
In his omnibus motion, defendant moved to inspect the Grand Jury minutes and to dismiss the
Supreme Court denied the motion,
Defendant argued that the auto stripping statute was not intended to cover simple theft
was enacted to deter the theft and dismantling of automobiles for their parts.
Supreme Court concluded that the statute unambiguously proscribed the "intentional damage or
A different Judge denied the motion, ruling that the plain language of the statute
The Appellate Division modified defendant's conviction to the extent of deleting a portion of
A Judge of this Court granted defendant leave to appeal, and we now affirm.
To sustain a conviction for auto stripping in this case, the People were required to prove
It is undisputed that the literal language of the auto stripping statute proscribes the
At issue is whether the statute's broad language covers defendant's act of shattering a car
In construing statutes, we must first examine the statutory language, "the clearest indicator
School Dist.,, 91 NY2d 577, 583; see also, People v Ryan,, 82 NY2d 497, 502).
the words chosen by the Legislature -- "destroys or defaces" --are abundantly clear and
Although the auto stripping statute was enacted, in part, to discourage the dismantling of
we reject defendant's argument that he should not be prosecuted for auto stripping since his
By imposing stiffer penalties on those who specialize in auto crime, the Legislature clearly
|
