People v. Cunningham, 401 N.E.2d 182 (NY 1979). · Go Syfert
Search
People v. Cunningham, 401 N.E.2d 182 (NY 1979). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
“evidence corroborating accomplice testimony 'need not prove the commission of the crime' all that is necessary is that the evidence "satisfies the jury that the accomplice is telling the truth”
70 citation events (9 in the last 25 years) across 6 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Commonwealth v. Fernandes (mass, 1997-07-02)
Treatment trajectory · 1980 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1980 2003 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 11 distinct citers.
discussed Cited as authority (verbatim quote) Commonwealth v. Fernandes
Mass. · 1997 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
evidence corroborating accomplice testimony 'need not prove the commission of the crime' all that is necessary is that the evidence "satisfies the jury that the accomplice is telling the truth
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Reid
N.Y. App. Div. · 2023 · confidence medium
Inasmuch as the indictment charges a discrete statutory violation in December 2018, we further agree with defendant that the court erred in allowing the People to proceed on a theory that the violation actually occurred in August 2016 and thereafter continued to occur up through December 2018. " 'It is well settled that except where time is a material ingredient of the crime the prosecution is not confined in its evidence to the precise date laid in the indictment, but may prove that the offense was committed at any time prior to the commencement of the prosecution and such proof does not cons…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Finley
N.Y. App. Div. · 2010 · confidence medium
Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the accomplice testimony at trial was supported by sufficient independent corroborative evidence tending to connect him to the crimes charged (see CPL 60.22; People v Breland, 83 NY2d 286 [1994]; People v Steinberg, 79 NY2d 673, 684 [1992]; People v Hudson, 51 NY2d 233 [1980]; People v Cunningham, 48 NY2d 938, 940 [1979]; People v McRae, 65 AD3d 1382 [2009]; People v Benavides, 16 AD3d 593 [2005]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Commonwealth v. Asmeron
Mass. App. Ct. · 2007 · confidence medium
Cases from other States support this view.” Commonwealth v. Fernandes, 425 Mass. 357, 359 (1997) (footnote omitted). “ ‘[E]vidence corroborating accomplice testimony “need not prove the commission of the crime” ’; all that is necessary is that the evidence ‘satisfies the jury that the accomplice is telling the truth.’ ” Id. at 359-360 , quoting from People v. Cunningham, 48 N.Y.2d 938, 940 (1979).
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 "see" People v. Erle
N.Y. App. Div. · 2011 · signal: see · confidence high
Where, as here, time is not an essential element of an offense, “the prosecution is not required to prove the exact date and time the charged offenses occurred” (People v Glover, 185 AD2d 458, 460 [1992]; see People v Cunningham, 48 NY2d 938, 940 [1979]).
discussed Cited "see" ERLE, JEFFREY P., PEOPLE v
N.Y. App. Div. · 2011 · signal: see · confidence high
Where, as here, time is not an essential element of an offense, “the prosecution is not required to prove the exact date and time the charged offenses occurred” (People v Glover, 185 AD2d 458, 460 ; see People v Cunningham, 48 NY2d 938, 940 ).
discussed Cited "see" People v. Pryce
N.Y. App. Div. · 2005 · signal: see · confidence high
Contrary to the defendant’s contention, “[w]here time is not a material ingredient of the crime, the prosecution need not prove that the defendant committed the offenses during the entire period covered by the indictment but may show that the offense was committed at any time during the period covered by the indictment” (People v Rosenblum, 218 AD2d 823, 824 [1995]; see People v Cunningham, 48 NY2d 938, 940 [1979]).
discussed Cited "see" People v. Sieteski
N.Y. App. Div. · 1997 · signal: see · confidence high
We further conclude that the accomplice testimony of Anastasi is amply corroborated by other trial evidence “tending to connect the defendant with the commission” of the crimes (CPL 60.22 [1]; see, People v Cunningham, 48 NY2d 938, 940 ).
discussed Cited "see" People v. Wosu
N.Y. App. Div. · 1995 · signal: see · confidence high
Although "the prosecution is not confined in its evidence to the precise date laid in the indictment” (People v La Marca, 3 NY2d 452, 458 , mot to amend remittitur granted 3 NY2d 933 , 942, rearg denied 3 NY2d 942 , 4 NY2d 960 , cert denied 355 US 920 ; see, People v Cunningham, 48 NY2d 938, 940 ), here the proof presented by the prosecution confined the offenses to the time period around Thanksgiving in conformity with its oral bill of particulars.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." People of State of New York v. Grega
NY · 1988 · signal: see also · confidence low
Similarly, People v Charles teaches that where the wording of the indictment required proof of more than was required under the statute, the People were not bound and satisfaction of only the statutory elements did not constitute a change in the theory of prosecution ( 61 NY2d 321, 327-329 ; see also, People v Cunningham, 48 NY2d 938, 940 ; People v La Marca, 3 NY2d 452, 458-459 [where the date of the crime is not an element, proof "that the offense was committed at any time prior to the commencement of the prosecution * * * does not constitute a material variance” (emphasis supplied)]).
The People of the State of New York
v.
Michael Cunningham
New York Court of Appeals.
Dec 17, 1979.
401 N.E.2d 182
APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL, Michael Cunningham, pro se, and James E. Barnes, II, for appellant., William F. O’Brien, III, District Attorney (Edward D. Saslaw of counsel), for respondent.
Cited by 55 opinions  |  Published

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

For reasons stated by the Appellate Division, there was sufficient evidence to corroborate the accomplice testimony. In addition to the evidence concerning the moneygram dispatched on September 10, 1974, many of the details of the accomplice’s narrative were corroborated by the defendant’s own testimony, as well as by that of other witnesses. The corroborative evidence, although it did not independently establish the elements of the offense, was more than legally necessary. Contrary to defendant’s argument, evidence corroborating accomplice testimony "need not prove the commission of the crime. It is enough if the evidence shown to connect the defendant with the crime [reasonably] satisfies the jury that the accomplice is telling the truth” (People v Arce, 42 NY2d 179, 186; see, e.g., People v Daniels, 37 NY2d 624, 629-630). Here, the independent evidence 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).

Nor was error committed when the prosecution offered proof at trial as to a portion of the criminal transaction which occurred outside the dates specified in the indictment. "It is well settled that except where time is a material ingredient of the crime the prosecution is not confined in its evidence to the precise date laid in the indictment, but may prove that the offense was committed at any time prior to the commencement of the prosecution and such proof does not constitute a material variance” (People v La Marca, 3 NY2d 452, 458-459, cert den 355 US 920; accord, e.g., People v Jackson, 111 NY 362, 369; People v Krank, 110 NY 488, 492). In any event, here, the People produced evidence from which the jury could have concluded that part of the purchase price was paid in early September, 1974, well within the September 1 to September 25 period delineated in the indictment, even though[*941] actual delivery of the controlled substances might have been accomplished during the end of August.

We have reviewed those of defendant’s remaining contentions which are preserved and find no reversible error.

Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Meyer concur.

Order affirmed in a memorandum.