People v. Hickman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department · 2022 · Criminal Law

201 A.D.3d 598 (2022)

Updated August 1, 2026

Criminal Lawgrand larcenylegal sufficiencyweight of the evidencevalue of stolen propertyvalue elementstatutory thresholdlegal insufficiency

Facts

Defendant was convicted after trial of two counts of grand larceny in the third degree arising from two thefts. On appeal, he argued that the People failed to prove that the value of the merchandise in each theft exceeded the statutory threshold. The proof on value included testimony from store employees. Defendant also had a separate conviction by guilty plea for grand larceny in the fourth degree.

Issue

Whether defendant's challenges to the proof of the value element were preserved and, if not, whether the court should review them in the interest of justice; and alternatively, whether the evidence was legally sufficient and the verdict supported by the weight of the evidence on value. Also, whether affirmance of the trial convictions provided a basis to vacate the plea conviction.

Rule

A challenge to the legal sufficiency of the value element is unpreserved if not properly raised, and an appellate court may decline interest-of-justice review. In any event, legally sufficient proof of value exists where competent testimony from store employees permits the jury to draw reasonable inferences that, for each theft, the value of the merchandise exceeded the statutory threshold; the verdict may also be upheld as not against the weight of the evidence on that element.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Manhattan, Darnell Price was convicted by a jury of grand larceny based on taking several luxury coats from a department store. At trial, his lawyer argued only that the prosecution had not proved identity, and never specifically challenged proof of the coats' value.

On appeal, Darnell argues for the first time that the prosecution failed to prove the value element. How should the appellate court treat that claim under the governing rule?

Explanation. The majority rule is that a legal insufficiency challenge to the value element is unpreserved if not properly raised at trial. The appellate court may decline to review it in the interest of justice. The opinion expressly treated the value challenge that way before alternatively discussing the merits.