In February 2006, Pablo Rodriguez and friends were drinking "substantial quantities" of beer.
When they ran out of alcohol, the group went to the local liquor store and, after they found it closed, decided to break-in through a window located at the rear of the establishment.
Rodriguez alleged that when his friends attempted to enter the premises forcibly, he decided to leave. His cohorts testified Rodriguez remained and it was his idea to perpetrate the crime.
After the Courtland County Court convicted Rodriguez of burglary in the third degree, criminal mischief in the fourth degree, petit larceny and conspiracy in the fifth and sixth degrees, he appealed to the Appellate Division, Third Department.
Rodriguez argued that his friends' testimony wasn't "sufficiently corroborated" and the verdict was "against the weight of the evidence."
While a conviction can't be based on uncorroborated evidence when multiple accomplices are involved, a witness testified the group left together and returned nearly a half-hour later with a 30-pack case of beer.
Because Rodriguez knew the liquor store was closed when he left the apartment, was placed at the scene of the crime, and returned "at about the same time as two accomplices," the AD3 was of the opinion there was enough evidence to support the outcome.
2 to 6 years for a case of lager?
Hope it was a premium brand.
To download a copy of the Appellate Division's decision, please use this link: People v. Rodriguez