TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

In re Amar A.

In the Matter of Amar A., a Person Alleged to be a Juvenile Delinquent

In re Amar A., 172 A.D.2d 426 (1991)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · State Appellate Courts
Decided
April 30, 1991
Citations
172 A.D.2d 426569 N.Y.S.2d 61991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5111

Opinion of the Court

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Final Order of Disposition of the Family Court, Bronx County (Harvey M. Sklaver, J.), entered April 9, 1990, after a fact-finding hearing, which adjudicated appellant a juvenile delinquent for the commission of acts which, if committed by an adult, would constitute the crime of attempted robbery in the second degree (Penal Law §§ 110:00, 160.10 [2] [b]), and which directed that appellant be placed with the Division for Youth for a period of 12 months, unanimously reversed, on the law, and the petition dismissed, without costs.

The sole witness at the fact-finding hearing was the arresting officer, John Felz. Officer Felz testified that on the night of August 18, 1989 he observed the then 14 year-old appellant attempting to pull at a bag carried by one Herman Twiggs. By the light of a street lamp located about 40 feet from the appellant and Twiggs, Officer Felz saw what appeared at a distance to be a pistol in the appellant’s hand. After arresting the appellant, Felz recovered the "pistol” from behind a nearby fence where it had been thrown by the appellant. Upon closer inspection it turned out to have been a red and white toy gun with a plugged barrel. Felz stated that it was in fact much the same as one he had owned as a boy.

Upon Felz’s testimony alone we are unable to conclude that the presentment agency proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the appellant attempted to rob Twiggs. What Felz described in his testimony might as easily have been an essentially innocent juvenile prank. In the absence of proof establishing that appellant’s acts were accompanied by a larcenous intent—proof which would ordinarily be supplied in a case of this sort through the testimony of the complainant—we cannot say that the presentment agency made out its case. In view of this failure of proof, the petition must be dismissed. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Carro, Wallach, Kupferman and Asch, JJ.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

2014: 120142026peak 2014 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. LAMONT, JAFARI, PEOPLE vNo. KA 09-02474 (N.Y. App. Div. Jan. 3, 2014)

Most recent

  1. LAMONT, JAFARI, PEOPLE vNo. KA 09-02474 (N.Y. App. Div. Jan. 3, 2014)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list