Legal Opinion · Dissent

People v. Schillaci

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Decided May 14, 1979Published

1Dissent

Martuscello, J. (dissenting).

I would affirm the judgment. The majority’s decision to reverse and dismiss the indictment relies on the failure of the People to show recent and exclusive possession, by the defendant, of the fruits of the crime. Essentially, they emphasize (1) the hiatus between the commission of the crime (February 1, 1974) and the date of arrest (March 28, 1974) and (2) the absence of proof of "exclusive” possession.

The classic case on the inference of recent and exclusive possession is Knickerbocker v People (43 NY 177). The hiatus *129there between the theft of a watch and the…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Knickerbocker v. . the PeopleNew York Court of Appeals · 1870
  2. People v. ColonNew York Court of Appeals · 1971
  3. People v. PetersAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1973
  4. People v. MastersAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1968

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API