People v Mansilla
Annotate this CaseDecided on September 25, 2006
Criminal Court of the City of New York, New York County
The People of the State of New York
against
Luis Mansilla & Arias Perez, Defendants.
2006NY042684
Defendant Mansilla by:
Noel M. Ziegler, Esq.
Post Office Box 336
Woodbury, New York 11797
Defendant Perez by:
Stephen W. Edwards, Esq.
100 Ocean Parkway, No.2B
Brooklyn, New York 11218-1750
People by:
Assistant District Attorney Joanna Berlin, Esq.
New York County District Attorney's Office
One Hogan Place
New York, New York 10013
Anthony J. Ferrara, J.
At 3 o'clock in the afternoon, on June 24, 2006, Luis Mansilla, Arias Perez, Barion Espinosa, and Arias Franklin were all arrested after each allegedly gave Police Officer Rudy Lahens a fraudulent resident alien card. Court records show that Barion Espinosa pleaded guilty to Disorderly Conduct (PL § 240.20) at arraignment and that defendant Arias Franklin pleaded not guilty but failed to appear at his subsequent court date on September 11, 2006, resulting in a warrant for his arrest. These two remaining defendants contest the sufficiency of the information (and seek other relief) complaining that the information fails to set forth non-hearsay facts supporting each of the elements of criminal possession of a forged instrument in the third degree (PL § 170.20).
The complaint alleges:
. . . the above defendants each gave deponent [Officer Lahens] a fraudulent resident alien card.
Deponent states that said cards are forged, based on deponent's training and experience, [*2]in that (i) said cards appear to be laminated photocopies, and authentic cards are of superior paper quality, (ii) the printing on said cards card is of an inferior quality to authentic cards, (iii) authentic cards have a seal and none of the cards presented to deponent by the above defendants had a seal, (iv) defendant Franklin stated in substance to deponent, WE ONLY USE THESE CARDS FOR WORK BECAUSE THEY"RE NOT REAL IDS.
The Voluntary Disclosure Forms ("VDFs") filed by the People, in response to the motions made by these defendants, indicate that defendant Franklin made this statement to the arresting officer at 22:00 hours at the 6th Precinct.
Defendants' motions are decided as follows:
Motions to Dismiss for Facial Insufficiency
The defendants challenge the sufficiency of the information, arguing that the post-arrest, custodial statement of defendant Franklin is hearsay, and accordingly may not supply proof that the identity cards were forged and possessed with intent to "deceive, defraud, or injure another."
An information is facially sufficient if the factual section contains allegations of an evidentiary nature demonstrating reasonable cause to believe that the defendant committed the offense charged (CPL 100.15; CPL 100.40[1][b]). The facts must be supported by non-hearsay allegations which establish, if true, every element of the charged offense (CPL 100.40[1][c]; People v. Alejandro, 70 NY2d 133, 135 [1987]). The standard for pleading a prima-facie case is lesser than the heavy burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt required at trial (see People v Henderson, 92 NY2d 677, 680 [1999]) and the factual allegations should be given a fair and not overtly restrictive reading (see People v. Casey, 95 NY2d 354, 360 [2000]). When assessing the facial sufficiency of an accusatory instrument, a court must view the facts in the light most favorable to the People (see People v. Gonzalez, 184 Misc 2d 262, 708 N.Y.S.2d 564 [App Term, 1st Dept 2000], lv. denied 95 NY2d 835 [2000]). However, conclusory allegations are insufficient (see People v Dumas, 68 NY2d 729 [1986]) and a court need not ignore common sense or the significance of the alleged conduct in determining facial sufficiency (Gonzalez, 184 Misc 2d at 264).
A person is guilty of criminal possession of a forged instrument in the third degree when "with knowledge that it is forged and with intent to defraud, deceive or injure another, he utters or possesses a forged instrument" (PL § 170.20). The allegations must demonstrate that the instrument in question was forged, that the defendant possessed the forged instrument, that the defendant knew it was forged and that he intended to deceive, defraud or injure another (see People v. Johnson, 65 NY2d 556 [1985]; People v. Singh, N.Y.L.J., May 11, 1999, at 25 [Crim Ct, NY County, Feinman, J.]). Knowledge may be established circumstantially through events and conduct (see Johnson, 65 NY2d at 561; People v. Green, 53 NY2d 651, 652 [1981]; cf. People v. Roa, 8 Misc 3d 333 [Crim Ct. NY County 2005]). A defendant's intent may be inferred from the factual allegations and intent is generally for the trier of fact to determine (see People v. Spiegel, 181 Misc 2d 48, 52 [Crim Ct, NY County 1999]).
The People seek to show these defendants' knowledge of the falsity of the alien registration cards presented to the arresting officer through the post-arrest admission made by defendant Franklin. While cases hold that a defendant's admission is an exception to the hearsay rule and may be considered to establish facial sufficiency when pleaded in a complaint, that authority is of no help to the People in this case (see People v. Heller, 180 Misc 2d 160 [Crim [*3]Ct, New York County 1998]; Matter of Rodney J., 108 AD2d 307 [1st Dept 1985]). Here, the VDFs establish that defendant Franklin made the statement set forth in the complaint while in custody at the precinct long after his arrest. Absent allegations of fact that lay a foundation for the admission of his statement against his co-defendants, under a recognized exception to the hearsay rule, the Court may not consider his statement when addressing the sufficiency of the information.
The information does allege that each defendant gave the arresting officer a forged resident alien card and that the officer had experience and training in the identification of forged resident alien cards. (cf. People v Dumas, 68 NY2d 729 [1986]; People v. Dean, 153 Misc 2d 1031 [Crim Ct, Queens County 1992] [holding the observation that an out of state driver's license was forged by a New York City Police officer is sufficient to sustain an information charging a violation of Penal Law 170.20]). As a general rule possession, especially on one's person, suffices to permit the inference that the possessor knew what he or she possessed (see People v. Reisman, 29 NY2d 278, 285 [1971]). Additionally, the People may rely upon "inferences which flow naturally from defendant's failure to comply with the affirmative duty to possess proper documents" (People v. Roa, 8 Misc 3d 333 [Crim Ct. NY County 2005] quoting People v Stephens, 177 Misc 2d 819 at 824 [Crim Ct, Kings County 1998]). Under Federal Law, an alien is defined as "any person not a citizen or national of the United States" (8 U.S.C.S. § 1101(a)(3)). Federal Law requires an alien to apply for registration and be fingerprinted (8 U.S.C.S. § 1302) and requires an alien to carry at all times his or her alien registration card (8 U.S.C.S. § 1304(e)). Given the federal statutory scheme requiring documentation, reasonable inferences that these defendants knew that resident aliens are required to register, as well as carry, an alien registration card and that the card each carried was forged, flow naturally from possession of forged alien registration cards. A reasonable trier of fact may also infer intent to deceive the officer about alien status from each defendant's separate act of presenting a forged resident alien card as identification. The allegations contained in the information give reasonable cause to believe that each defendant committed the offense charged. Defendants' motions to dismiss the information as facially insufficient are denied.
Motions to Suppress the Physical Evidence
The defendants' motions to suppress any physical evidence seized from them at the time of their arrests are granted to the extent that Mapp/Dunaway hearings are ordered.
Motions to Suppress Defendants' Statements
The VDFs filed by the People show that the People do not intend to offer any statement by either of these defendants obtained as a result of defendants' arrests. These motions are denied.
Motions to Preclude Unnoticed Statements and Identification Testimony
The VDFs filed by the People show that the People do not intend to offer any identification testimony at trial. The defendants' motions to preclude unnoticed statements and identification are denied as premature with leave to renew in the event the People attempt to offer unnoticed statements or identification.
Sandoval Motions
Defendants' motions to preclude cross-examination as to prior convictions or uncharged bad acts are referred to the trial court.
The People are reminded of their continuing obligation to supply Brady material. [*4]
To the extent not addressed herein, the remainder of the motions are denied.
These cases are next on the calendar in Part B on October 30, 2006. A copy of this decision is being mailed to the parties on September 25, 2006.
This opinion constitutes the decision and order of the Court.
Dated:New York, New York
September 25, 2006
____________________________
ANTHONY J. FERRARA
Judge of the Criminal Court
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
