THE PEOPLE &C., RESPONDENT, v. YVETTE CHICO, APPELLANT.
90 N.Y.2d 585, 687 N.E.2d 1288, 665 N.Y.S.2d 5 (1997).
October 28, 1997
1 No. 201
(97 NY Int. 0180)
Decided October 28, 1997
_________________________________________________________________
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication
in the New York Reports.
_________________________________________________________________
Olga L. Torres, for appellant.
Craig A. Steinberg, for respondent.
LEVINE, J.:
Defendant appeals, pursuant to permission granted by a Justice of the
Appellate Division, from an order of that court (233 AD2d 245)
affirming defendant's conviction, after a non-jury trial, of two
counts of hindering prosecution in the first degree (see, Penal Law
§ 205.65). At issue is the legal sufficiency of the evidence presented
by the prosecution to sustain the conviction and, more specifically,
whether statements made by defendant and relied upon by the trial
court were sufficiently corroborated under CPL 60.50.
At trial, the prosecution introduced the testimony of two police
detectives concerning statements made by defendant that in the summer
of 1989, after a dispute over crack sales, her common law husband,
Marcus Rivera, and his confederates conceived of a plan to kill
Roberto Corperone. Defendant related that she observed Rivera and the
others stalk Corperone until, finding him in front of a building on
Jerome Avenue in the Bronx, the group opened fire and, as the victim
fled, Rivera shot and killed him. This statement, transcribed by one
of the officers but never signed by defendant, was admitted into
evidence at trial. In addition, the detectives testified that
defendant twice agreed to help them apprehend Rivera by taking them to
where he was staying in Philadelphia. On both occasions, when the
detectives and defendant arrived in Philadelphia, Rivera was not at
the expected location. Following each failed attempt to locate Rivera,
defendant admitted to the police that she had thwarted their effort to
apprehend him by warning Rivera in advance, after experiencing a
SNIPPETS:
Defendant appeals, pursuant to permission granted by a Justice of the Appellate Division,
At issue is the legal sufficiency of the evidence presented by the prosecution to sustain the
At trial, the prosecution introduced the testimony of two police detectives concerning
the detectives testified that defendant twice agreed to help them apprehend Rivera by taking
The officers further testified that defendant agreed to go with the detectives to locate
Defendant was indicted and convicted of hindering prosecution in the first degree, which is
Thus, there are three elements to the crime, each of which must be proven beyond a reasonable
Indeed, the Penal Law directly links the degree of a defendant's criminalculpability for
Thus, to establish hindering prosecution in the first degree in this case, the People were
Nonetheless, we conclude that the People presented legally sufficient proof of each element
The standard of appellate review for determining whether the evidence presented by the
Defendant's eye witness description of the murder is, therefore, evidence against her of both
Moreover, the detectives' testimony that defendant admitted that she had alerted Rivera of
Viewing this evidence in the light most favorable to the People, the majority at the
defendant argues that the People failed to furnish corroboration under CPL 60.50 of
"A person may not be convicted of any offense solely upon evidence of a confession or
This statutory corroboration requirement does not mandate submission of independent evidence
The purpose of the statute is to avert "the danger that a crime may have been confessed when
Opinion by Judge Levine.
|
