You are here: / / Actus Reus for Burglary and Murder Not the Same—Consecutive Sentences...

Actus Reus for Burglary and Murder Not the Same—Consecutive Sentences Valid

The Fourth Department, over a two-justice dissent, determined the defendant was properly sentenced to consecutive terms for burglary and murder.  The defendant broke into the victim’s home, dragged her downstairs and murdered her.  The court held that the actus reus for the burglary was completed before the murder:

Defendant was convicted of burglary for unlawfully entering the victim’s dwelling, with the aggravating factors of causing physical injury to the victim (§ 140.30 [2]), and using or threatening the immediate use of a dangerous instrument (§ 140.30 [3]), i.e., a butcher knife. Defendant was charged with intentionally causing the victim’s death by repeatedly stabbing her with a butcher knife. It is well established that, in considering whether sentences must run concurrently under Penal Law § 70.25 (2), “the court must determine whether the [actus reus] element is, by definition, the same for both offenses (under the first prong of the statute), or if the [actus reus] for one offense is, by definition, a material element of the second offense (under the second prong)” … . “[W]hen the actus reus is a single inseparable act that violates more than one statute, single punishment must be imposed” … . Although the actus reus elements of the burglary counts and the murder count overlap under the facts presented here, we nevertheless conclude that the People “establish[ed] the legality of consecutive sentencing by showing that the acts or omissions’ committed by defendant were separate and distinct acts” … . The evidence established that, after defendant entered the apartment through a window that he smashed with a cinder block, he dragged the victim from her bed and down the stairs to the living room, where he killed her. People v Brahney, 2015 NY Slip Op 02227, 4th Dept 3-20-15

 

 

You might also like
DEFENDANT’S EVIDENTIARY ARGUMENTS ARE VIEWED ON APPEAL THROUGH THE LENS OF THE JURY INSTRUCTIONS TO WHICH NO OBJECTIONS WERE MADE, NO NEED TO PRESENT SPECIFIC PROOF THE CAR DEALERSHIP WHICH WAS VANDALIZED WAS A PERSON (A CORPORATION IN THIS CONTEXT) WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE CRIMINAL MISCHIEF STATUTE, NO NEED TO PROVE THE PRECISE AMOUNT OF DAMAGE CAUSED BY THE DEFENDANT AS OPPOSED TO THE DAMAGE CAUSED BY ALL PARTICIPANTS, ORDERING RESTITUTION IN THE FULL AMOUNT OF THE DAMAGES, AS OPPOSED TO APPORTIONING THE DAMAGES AMONG ALL THE PARTICIPANTS, WAS NOT ERROR (FOURTH DEPT).
EVERY STATEMENT DEFENDANT MADE AFTER HE TOLD THE OFFICERS “I AIN’T GOT NOTHING TO TALK ABOUT” SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (FOURTH DEPT).
AFTER A VALID TRAFFIC STOP BASED ON THE LICENSE PLATES NOT MATCHING THE VEHICLE, DEFENDANT PRESENTED HIS TEMPORARY REGISTRATION AND EXPLAINED THE PLATES HAD BEEN TRANSFERRED FROM A DIFFERENT VEHICLE; AT THAT POINT THE AUTHORIZATION TO DETAIN DEFENDANT CEASED; THE SEIZED DRUGS SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (FOURTH DEPT). ​
THE SENTENCING JUDGE DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO DIRECT THAT THE SENTENCE RUN CONSECUTIVELY WITH A SENTENCE WHICH HAD NOT YET BEEN IMPOSED BY A DIFFERENT COURT; THE APPROPRIATE APPELLATE REMEDY IS TO STRIKE THE DIRECTIVE (FOURTH DEPT).
ALTHOUGH FATHER COULD NOT SEEK MODIFICATION OF A NEW JERSEY SUPPORT ORDER UNDER THE UNIFORM INTERSTATE FAMILY SUPPORT ACT (UIFSA) HE COULD SEEK MODIFICATION UNDER THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT FOR CHILD SUPPORT ORDERS ACT (FFCCSOA) WHICH PREEMPTS THE UIFSA (FOURTH DEPT).
Court’s Failure to Elicit Unequivocal Declarations Jurors Could Set Aside their Biases Required Reversal
BECAUSE THERE WAS ONLY ONE ORIGINAL WILL, NOT MULTIPLE ORIGINALS, THE INABILITY TO FIND A WILL UPON DECEDENT’S DEATH DID NOT GIVE RISE TO THE PRESUMPTION OF REVOCATION BY THE DECEDENT (FOURTH DEPT).
Incarcerated Father Entitled to Reinstatement of His Petition for Visitation

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Claimant Was an Employee of a Cleaning and Janitorial Service Abuse of Discretion to Deny Defendant’s Request for New Defense Counsel—Request...