People v Quintero
Annotate this CaseDecided on August 15, 2013
Just Ct of Town of Red Hook, Dutchess County
The People of the State of New York,
against
Raymond A. Quintero, Defendant.
CR-918-12
Jonah Triebwasser, J.
Procedural History
On April 25, 2013 (after a bench trial held on April 24, 2013) defendant was convicted of the crime of Petit Larceny in violation of Section 155.25 of the Penal Law of the State of New York. It was the finding of this Court, by proof beyond a reasonable doubt, that defendant intended to appropriate the victim's dog, permanently if necessary, unless the dog's owner met defendant's standard of care.
On May 23, 2013, pursuant to section 330.30 of the Criminal Procedure Law, defendant moved this Court for an Order setting aside the verdict of guilty on the grounds that defendant was justified in his actions, pursuant to Section 35.05(2) of the Penal Law, and that the People failed to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that defendant had the requisite mens rea to sustain the Petit Larceny charge.
The People responded by affirmation in opposition, dated June 25, 2013.
Oral argument was had on the motion on July 25, 2013, after which the motion was marked fully-submitted.
The People were represented by Senior Assistant District Attorney Kevin P. Irwin, Esq. Defendant was represented by Warren Reiss, Esq.
Defendant's Failure to Preserve the Issue of Legal Insufficiency
Defendant's motion to set aside the verdict due to the legal insufficiency of the People's alleged failure to prove mens rea must be denied as defendant failed to preserve the issue by renewing his motion for a trial order of dismissal at the close of his own case. People v. Hines,, 97 NY2 d56 (2001). Under the Hines doctrine, this Court is without jurisdiction to address the sufficiency of the People's case in this post-trial motion. Even if the Court had proper jurisdiction, we would not overturn our earlier finding that defendant had the requisite mens rea or intent. There are cases in which the intent may be inferred from the nature of the act. People v. Molineux, 168 NY 264 (1901). [*2]This is just such a case.
Defense of Justification
In his motion papers, defendant raises - for the first time in these proceedings - the defense of justification. If such a defense had been raised at trial, the People would have to disprove that defense by proof beyond a reasonable doubt, pursuant to Section 25.00 of the Penal Law. Even though the law as to the specific notice of the justification defense is vague, surely there must be some specific notice to the People that they are to be put to the burden of disproving the defense by the high standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. In fact, in this case, the exact opposite was true. When asked specifically by the Court during a colloquy after an objection if the defense was interposing the defense of justification, defense counsel stated "not quite." During his testimony, defendant denied that he made the following statements to the arresting officer, any of which would have put the People on notice of the justification defense:
"He's (the complaining witness) not caring for those dogs."
"I was saving his (the dog's) life."
"He (the dog) hasn't stopped eating since I brought him home."
The Assistant District Attorney in this case has many talents, but mind-reading is not one of them. If the People are not given notice of the defense of justification and, in fact, defendant specifically denies at trial that he will raise such a defense, it will be unavailing to raise that defense at a post-trial motion.
Court's Decision
For the reasons articulated, supra, the Defendant's motion is denied in toto. Defendant is directed to appear before this Court for sentencing on Thursday, August 22, 2013 at 6:00 p.m.
This decision also constitutes the Order of this Court.
Dated:August 15, 2013
Red Hook, New York
SO ORDERED.
_________________________________________
JONAH TRIEBWASSER,
Justice, Town of Red Hook
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.
