People v. Silva, 507 N.E.2d 303 (N.Y. 1987). · Go Syfert
Search
People v. Silva, 507 N.E.2d 303 (N.Y. 1987). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
24 citation events (6 in the last 25 years) across 3 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: People v. James (nyappdiv, 2017-02-23)
Treatment trajectory · 1987 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1987 2006 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 5 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. James
N.Y. App. Div. · 2017 · confidence medium
Simply put, where there is no direct evidence linking the defendant to the charged crimes, courts consistently have required that a circumstantial evidence charge be given (see People v Santiago, 22 NY3d 990, 991-992 [2013]; People v Silva, 69 NY2d 858, 859 [1987]; People v Sanchez, 61 NY2d at 1023 ; People v Jones, 105 AD3d at 1060 ; People v Carter, 97 AD3d at 496 ; People v Saxton, 75 AD3d at *1214 758; People v Lynch, 309 AD2d 878 , 878 [2003], lv denied 2 NY3d 742 [2004]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Smith
N.Y. App. Div. · 2011 · confidence medium
“A circumstantial evidence charge is required [only] where the evidence against a defendant is ‘wholly circumstantial’ ” (People v Guidice, 83 NY2d 630, 636 [1994], quoting People v Silva, 69 NY2d 858, 859 [1987]; see People v Daddona, 81 NY2d 990, 992 [1993]).
cited Cited as authority (rule) People v. Bradley
N.Y. App. Div. · 2010 · confidence medium
Thus, there was other direct evidence of defendant’s guilt such that a circumstantial evidence charge was not warranted (cf. People v Silva, 69 NY2d 858, 859 [1987]).
discussed Cited "see" People v. Mickewitz
N.Y. App. Div. · 1997 · signal: see · confidence high
Because the People’s case depended entirely upon circumstantial evidence, the court erred in permitting the jury to decide whether to apply the moral certainty standard of proof, i.e., "[t]he circumstantial facts proved must exclude to a moral certainty every hypothesis but guilt” (1 CJI[NY] 9.05, at 475; see, People v Silva, 69 NY2d 858, 859 ; People v Ford, 66 NY2d 428, 442 ).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." People v. Bah
N.Y. Sup. Ct. · 2002 · signal: see also · confidence low
Furthermore, the fact that there was no direct identification is “an additional consideration for trial and is not determinative as to the legal sufficiency of the indictment.” (Id. at 474; see also People v Silva, 69 NY2d 858 [1987]; People v Gonzalez, 54 NY2d 729 [1981].) In the case at bar, the court finds that there was sufficient circumstantial evidence for a grand jury to return the indictment.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
The People of the State of New York, Respondent,
v.
Gilberto Silva, Appellant
New York Court of Appeals.
Mar 24, 1987.
507 N.E.2d 303
1987 N.Y. LEXIS 15905
APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL, Jonathan M. Kratter and Philip L. Weinstein for appellant., Robert M. Morgenthau, District Attorney (Jeffrey Scott Sarokin of counsel), for respondent.
Wachtler and Judges Simons, Kaye, Alexander, Titone, Hancock, Jr., and Bellacosa Concur in Memorandum.
Cited by 23 opinions  |  Published

[*859] OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be modified by reversing defendant’s convictions of robbery in the first and second degrees and ordering a new trial on those counts, and as so modified, affirmed.

While on duty, John Perry — a parking lot attendant — was robbed of money and clothing by three masked men with guns. One of the robbers tied Perry’s hands and feet; the three men then stole a car from the lot and drove away. Perry untied his feet and hailed a police car. After placing Perry in the back seat, the police officers patrolled the area. Perry spotted the stolen car and pointed it out to the police, who, joined by other officers, chased the car and overtook it. Two of the occupants were seized, but the third — defendant—armed with a gun, fled to a nearby housing project, with two officers in pursuit. Defendant fired at one of the officers. When a patrol car approached, defendant fired in its direction, turned into an alley, entered the back door of an auto repair shop, and fired in the direction of the owner and a police officer who had entered from the front. The chase proceeded to the alley where defendant, upon being cornered, fired three shots at close range directly at police officers before being shot himself. Defendant was indicted on charges of attempted murder in the first degree, first and second degree robbery and criminal possession of a weapon.

At trial, prior to summations, defense counsel requested a circumstantial evidence charge with regard to the robbery counts. The prosecutor indicated that he had no objection, and the court agreed to give the charge. Nonetheless, the court did not give the charge, and actually refused to do so when this omission was pointed out by counsel. Defendant was convicted and the Appellate Division affirmed.

Perry was unable to make an identification of defendant and there was no direct evidence linking him to the robbery. Thus, as the People concede, the case against defendant on the robbery counts was wholly circumstantial. It was, therefore, error for the court to refuse to give a circumstantial evidence charge (see, People v Ford, 66 NY2d 428; People v Sanchez, 61 NY2d 1022), and a new trial on those counts is required.

Defendant’s claim that attempted murder in the first degree is a nonexistent crime and that his convictions of that offense must be reduced to attempted murder in the second[*860] degree is without merit. Although in People v Smith (63 NY2d 41) we invalidated the mandatory capital sentence imposed by Penal Law § 60.06, we affirmed the defendant’s conviction of murder in the first degree. It was the death sentence, not the crime of first degree murder, that we found unconstitutional. Section 125.27 of the Penal Law, therefore, remains viable as a substantive basis for a charge of attempted murder in the first degree. Defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit.

Chief Judge Wachtler and Judges Simons, Kaye, Alexander, Titone, Hancock, Jr., and Bellacosa concur in memorandum.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.4), order modified, etc.