ALTHOUGH THERE WAS DIRECT EVIDENCE DEFENDANT OWNED THE CAMERA WHICH WAS SET UP TO VIEW THE VICTIM’S BEDROOM, THERE WAS NO DIRECT EVIDENCE IT WAS THE DEFENDANT WHO ACTUALLY PLACED THE CAMERA ON THE NEIGHBOR’S PROPERTY; THERFORE THE CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE JURY INSTRUCTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GIVEN; CONVICTION REVERSED (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined defendant’s request for the circumstantial evidence jury instruction should have been granted. Defendant was charged with setting up a camera on a neighbor’s property to view the victim’s bedroom. There was some direct evidence that the camera belonged to defendant. But the jury would have to rely on circumstantial evidence to find that the defendant had positioned the camera to view the victim:

… [P]roof by direct evidence as to one element of a crime … does not mean that a circumstantial evidence charge should be not given … . …

… [T]he record fails to disclose any eyewitness testimony — or any other proof — identifying defendant as the perpetrator who placed the camera on the neighbor’s lawn … . To conclude that defendant was the perpetrator, the jury had to make an inference based upon defendant’s ownership of the camera and the pictures of him found therein. Because “the People’s proof relative to the identity of the perpetrator . . . was entirely circumstantial” … County Court should have granted defendant’s request for a circumstantial evidence charge … . People v Lamb, 2022 NY Slip Op 07267, Third Dept 12-22-22

Practice Point: Even though there was direct evidence of an element of an offense, the circumstantial evidence jury instruction should have been in this case. Defendant was charged with setting up a camera to view the victim in the victim’s bedroom. There was direct evidence defendant owned the camera but no direct evidence it was defendant who placed the camera on the neighbor’s property.