Judge John Wilson
Joseph, charged with criminal possession of stolen property, sought dismissal of the charge arguing the complaint was facially insufficient. He also sought suppression of all physical evidence seized and statements made to police. Joseph was observed by an officer to be in possession of a Dell computer monitor. It was alleged Joseph stated to the officer a person was selling the monitor and he got it for $30. The complaint alleged the purported owner did not give Joseph permission to take, use or possess the monitor. The court found the factual allegations contained in the complaint were insufficient stating a "sine qua non of criminal possession of stolen property" was that Joseph knowingly possessed the stolen property. It noted Joseph must have been aware he possessed the property in issue and that it was stolen. The court stated the confession corroboration rule was not satisfied by the allegations presented noting Joseph’s statement was not an admission of culpability as there was nothing in the statement indicating Joseph knew he could not possess the monitor. It ruled the mere fact he bought a monitor for $30 did not establish that Joseph knew or should have known it was stolen. The court gave prosecutors 30 days to cure the defect and supercede the complaint.
