LegalCaseDocs.com
shopping cart  
  |     
Search
 

 
New Visitors


 VeriSign Secure Site

 Get Adobe Reader

THE PEOPLE &C. v JAMES BESSER, A/K/A JAMES ZERILLI Click to find out why . . .



Keywords & Phrases
CaseNo: 68 MICHAEL J., CourtCode: AP, CourtName: NEW YORK COURT OF APPEALS, Plaintiff: THE PEOPLE &C., State: NEW YORK, UniqueCaseRef: NE>AP>68MICHAELJ, Enterprise, Pattern Acts, Jury, Offense, Accomplice, Enterprise Corruption, Charges, Penal Law, Evidence, Corroboration, Crime, Conviction, Felony, Testimony, Cpl, Sentencing, Ny2d, Commit, Criminal Activity, Robbery, Felonies, Determination, Prosecution, Separate, Participation, Grand Larceny, Purpose, Legislature , ContentID: 120248733

Case Documents
1   OPINION
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 120643
7 pages
TXT
Total Documents: 1 document , 7 pages
Price: $ 19.95


IVESLCD01 KGI0001
 
 

 Forgot your password?


1 . OPINION

EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
ENTERPRISE
PATTERN ACTS
JURY
OFFENSE
ACCOMPLICE
ENTERPRISE CORRUPTION
CHARGES
PENAL LAW
EVIDENCE
CORROBORATION
CRIME
CONVICTION
FELONY
TESTIMONY
CPL
SENTENCING
NY2D
COMMIT
CRIMINAL ACTIVITY
ROBBERY
FELONIES
DETERMINATION
PROSECUTION
COURT
SEPARATE
PARTICIPATION
GRAND LARCENY
PURPOSE
LEGISLATURE


   1 No. 67
   The People &c.,
   Respondent,
   v.
   James Besser, a/k/a James Zerilli,
   Appellant.
     _________________________________________________________________
     _________________________________________________________________

   1 No. 68
   The People &c.,
   Respondent,
   v.
   Jerry Ciauri,
   Appellant.
     _________________________________________________________________

   Case No. 67:
     _________________________________________________________________

   2001 NY Int. 54

   May 1, 2001

   This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication
   in the New York Reports.

   Richard M. Greenberg, for appellant.
   Gina M. Mignola, for respondent.
   Edward Lindner, for the Attorney General. Case No. 68: Michael J.
   Hutter, for appellant.
   Gina M. Mignola, for respondent.
   Edward Lindner, for the Attorney General. GRAFFEO, J.: Defendants were
   convicted after a jury trial of enterprise corruption (see, Penal
   Law § 460.20). The primary contention asserted by each defendant on
   appeal concerns application of the CPL 60.22(1) accomplice
   corroboration rule to an enterprise corruption prosecution. Defendants
   contend that accomplice corroboration was required for each pattern
   criminal act that supported a finding of guilt under the enterprise
   corruption statute. We conclude, however, the jury was properly
   charged that the testimony of the accomplices need not be corroborated
   for each pattern act but was sufficiently corroborated if the jury
   determined that some independent evidence tended to connect defendants
   to the offense of enterprise corruption. Accordingly, we affirm.
   In 1986, the Legislature enacted Title X of the Penal Law, the
   "Organized Crime Control Act" (OCCA), which created the offense of
SNIPPETS:
  • The primary contention asserted by each defendant on appeal concerns application of the CPL
  • Defendants contend that accomplice corroboration was required for each pattern criminal act
  • We conclude, however, the jury was properly charged that the testimony of the accomplices
  • In 1986, the Legislature enacted Title X of the Penal Law, the "Organized Crime Control Act",
  • Relevant to this case, a person is guilty of enterprise corruption when that individual is
  • A criminal enterprise refers to "a group of persons sharing a common purpose of engaging in
  • The pattern criminal acts which may qualify as a basis for the offense are enumerated in
  • the purpose of creating the separate crime was to address the particular and cumulative harm
  • For example, several CPL sections were amended to provide for use of particular jury charges
  • A defendant may not be convicted of the offense unless the jury finds the acts were part of a
  • Moreover, regardless of how many pattern acts the jury finds a defendant committed in
  • Accordingly, sentencing exposure is limited to that attendant to conviction for a single
  • "New York's accomplice corroboration protection, while persistently unique, requires only
  • Besser and Ciauri were both charged with six pattern acts involving robbery, conspiracy to
  • Defendants maintain the court should have adopted their version of the accomplice
  • This distinction is illustrated by the jury determination in this case.
  • Because Lane testified that his participation in the robbery was coerced by threats that
  •    |