People v. Smith, 434 N.E.2d 246 (NY 1982). · Go Syfert
Search
People v. Smith, 434 N.E.2d 246 (NY 1982). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
49 citation events (11 in the last 25 years) across 5 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: People v. Krivoi (nyappdiv, 2011-02-22)
Treatment trajectory · 1982 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1982 2004 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 13 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Krivoi
N.Y. App. Div. · 2011 · confidence medium
This contention is without merit (see CPL 60.22 [1]; People v Caban, 5 NY3d 143, 155 [2005]; People v Besser, 96 NY2d 136, 143-144 [2001]; People v Breland, 83 NY2d 286, 294 [1994]; People v Smith, 55 NY2d 945, 946-947 [1982]; People v Montefusco, 44 AD3d 879, 880 [2007]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Warren
N.Y. App. Div. · 2005 · confidence medium
Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the testimony of an accomplice with regard to the identification of the defendant as the person who committed the charged offenses was sufficiently corroborated by other evidence in the case (see CPL 60.22 [1]; People v Smith, 55 NY2d 945, 946 [1982]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Elhadi
N.Y. App. Div. · 2003 · confidence medium
Their testimony was not required to establish or corroborate all of the elements of the crimes charged and sufficiently connected defendant to these crimes “so as to reasonably satisfy the jury that the accomplice [s] [were] telling the truth” (People v Glasper, 52 NY2d 970, 971 [1981]; see People v Breland, 83 NY2d 286, 292-293 [1994]; People v Steinberg, 79 NY2d 673, 783 [1992]; People v Smith, 55 NY2d 945, 946 [1982]; People v Wood, 299 AD2d 739, 741-742 [2002]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Hawley
N.Y. App. Div. · 2001 · confidence medium
Concededly, Hogan’s testimony did not prove that Cartright delivered the cocaine to the various individuals at the residence, but it certainly tended to connect him to the crime and harmonized with the narrative provided by the accomplices (see, People v Smith, 55 NY2d 945, 946).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Gaiter v. Lord
E.D.N.Y · 1996 · confidence medium
Although, as noted, Gaiter’s testimony differed from Smith’s in terms of her degree of involvement in the crime, Crim.Proc.L. § 60.22(1) merely requires that the corroborative testimony “connect the defendant with the commission of the crime to be proven, not to prove [she] committed it.” People v. Smith, 55 N.Y.2d 945, 946 , 434 N.E.2d 246, 246 , 449 N.Y.S.2d 177, 177 (1982); Steinberg, supra, 79 N.Y.2d at 683 , 595 N.E.2d at 849 , 584 N.Y.S.2d at 774 ; Hudson, supra, 51 N.Y.2d at 238 , 414 N.E.2d at 387 , 433 N.Y.S.2d at 1007 ; People v. Cunningham, 48 N.Y.2d 938, 940 , 401 N.E.2d 1…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Lawson
N.Y. App. Div. · 1985 · confidence medium
The purpose of such corroboration is not to prove that the defendant committed the crime, but only to connect the defendant with its commission (see, People v Smith, 55 NY2d 945, 946; People v Glasper, 52 NY2d 970, 971 ).
discussed Cited "see" People v. Brown
N.Y. App. Div. · 2013 · signal: see · confidence high
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People (see People v Potter, 262 AD2d 1074, 1074 [1999]; see generally People v Smith, 55 NY2d 945, 947 [1982]), we conclude that the 13-year-old victim’s testimony that defendant had sexual intercourse with her was sufficient to meet the corroboration requirement.
discussed Cited "see" BROWN, JOHN, PEOPLE v
N.Y. App. Div. · 2013 · signal: see · confidence high
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People (see People v Potter, 262 AD2d 1074, 1074 ; see generally People v Smith, 55 NY2d 945, 947 ), we conclude that the 13-year-old victim’s testimony that defendant had sexual intercourse with her was sufficient to meet the corroboration requirement.
discussed Cited "see" People v. Brown
N.Y. App. Div. · 2013 · signal: see · confidence high
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People (see People v Potter, 262 AD2d 1074, 1074 [1999]; see generally People v Smith, 55 NY2d 945, 947 [1982]), we conclude that the 13-year-old victim’s testimony that defendant had sexual intercourse with her was sufficient to meet the corroboration requirement.
discussed Cited "see" People v. Bates
N.Y. App. Div. · 2002 · signal: see · confidence high
Here, the testimonies of Fleury, Cope, Dawn Fenner, Sandra Marshall and Melissa Fenner tended to connect defendant to the crime and “harmonized with the narrative provided by the accomplices” (People v Hawley, 286 AD2d 559, 561 ; see People v Smith, 55 NY2d 945, 946 ).
discussed Cited "see" People v. Potenza (2×)
N.Y. App. Div. · 1983 · signal: see · confidence high
Morhouse, 21 NY2d 66, 75 , supra, citing People v Mullens, supra; see People v Smith, 55 NY2d 945, 946 ; People v Daniels, 37 NY2d 624, 630 ; People v Kohut, 30 NY2d 183, 193-194 ).
examined Cited "see, e.g." Beatty v. Snow (3×)
S.D.N.Y. · 1984 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., People v. Smith, 55 N.Y.2d 945, 947 , 434 N.E.2d 246, 247 , 449 N.Y.S.2d 177, 178 (1982).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." People v. Ardito
N.Y. App. Div. · 1982 · signal: see also · confidence low
(People v Hudson, 51 NY2d 233, 239 ; see, also, People v Smith, 55 NY2d 945 ; People v Daniels, 37 NY2d 624 .) The required corroboration may be direct or circumstantial (P eople v Mullens, 292 NY 408 ; People v Brown, 30 AD2d 279 ; People v Guernsey, 24 AD2d 811 ).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
The People of the State of New York, Appellant,
v.
Joseph Smith, Respondent
New York Court of Appeals.
Feb 11, 1982.
434 N.E.2d 246
APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL, Eugene Gold, District Attorney (.Beth S. Lasky of counsel), for appellant., Barry D. Leiwant and William E. Hellerstein for respondent.
Cooke and Judges Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Meyer Concur Judge Jasen Taking No Part.
Cited by 44 opinions  |  Published

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed and the case remitted to that court for consideration of the facts.

The role of independent proof to meet the requirements for corroboration under CPL 60.22 (subd 1) is “to connect the defendant with the commission of the crime, not to prove he committed it” (People v Hudson, 51 NY2d 233, 238). For this purpose, matters which in themselves may be of seeming indifference may be “so harmonized ‘ “with the accomplice’s narrative as to have a tendency to furnish the necessary connection between the defendant and the crime” ’ (People v Daniels, 37 NY2d 624, 629)” (People v Cunningham, 48 NY2d 938, 940).

These principles in mind, we note that the independent witness Adams, who knew the defendant all her life, testified that, on the night of the homicide, upon looking in the direction from which she heard the shot, she at once saw “two guys [bending] over a man” and a third man walk away from where the body of the victim was lying. She also testified that there was then no one else around the body. She further testified that, without ever having looked away from the scene of the crime, she next noticed the men, including the third man, return and then recognized the latter as the defendant.

[*947] On this testimony, the trial court charged the jury, without exception: “[I]f you believe [Adams’] testimony tends to connect the defendant with the commission of the crime you would be justified in finding the defendant guilty. If you do not believe her, if you disregard her testimony, you must acquit. If you do not believe her testimony tends to connect the defendant with the commission of the crime, you must acquit”. On this charge, and taking' the testimony of Adams most favorably to the People, as we must at this stage in view of the verdict of the jury (People v Pena, 50 NY2d 400, 407), it cannot be said that the corroboration was insufficient as a matter of law.

Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Meyer concur; Judge Jasen taking no part.

Order reversed and case remitted to the Appellate Division, Second Department, for further proceedings in accordance with the memorandum herein.