People State New York v. Frederick F. Glover

[55 A.D.2d 719 Page 719] On this appeal defendant raises the sole issue, viz.: was there sufficient corroboration of the accomplice's testimony to sustain defendant's conviction. James Hines, who was previously convicted on his plea of guilty, testified to all the details of the alleged crimes and was clearly an accomplice. The purpose of corroboration required by CPL 60.22 (subd 1) is to be sure that the facts, even matters which in themselves may be of 'seeming indifference', 'so harmonize with the accomplice's narrative as to have a tendency to furnish the necessary connection between the defendant and the crime.' (People v Morhouse, 21 N.Y.2d 66, 74; People v Dixon [231 NY 111, 116-117].) It is not necessary to exclude to a moral certainty every hypotheses but that of wrongdoing. (People v Kohut, 30 N.Y.2d 183, 193-194.) All that is necessary is to connect the defendant with the crime in such a way that the jury may be reasonably satisfied that the accomplice is telling the truth. (People v Daniels, 37 N.Y.2d 624, 629-630.) Trooper Byrne testified that when he stopped Hines' car on the highway because of erratic driving, defendant was a passenger in the front seat of the car operated by the accomplice Hines, that the car was loaded with furniture clearly visible [55 A.D.2d 719 Page 720]