A New York appellate court has vacated the petit larceny conviction of Annmarie Drago, allowing for a new trial on that charge. This decision comes after the court found that the trial judge failed to properly instruct the jury on a defense that could have supported Drago's case. The ruling impacts Drago's legal standing and could set a precedent for similar cases involving claims of right.
The court's decision was issued on October 7, 2026, in the case of People v. Drago, docket number 2024-09121. The ruling affects both the defendant and the prosecution, as it requires a new trial on the petit larceny charge, which arose from Drago's actions in removing items from a memorial for a deceased child.
Background
In this case, Annmarie Drago was convicted of petit larceny after she took items from a memorial set up for Evelyn Rodriguez's daughter, who had been murdered. The memorial was placed outside a property owned by Drago's mother. Drago was also convicted of criminally negligent homicide after she struck Rodriguez with her vehicle while leaving the scene.
The dispute centers around whether Drago had a good faith belief that she had the right to remove the memorial items. The case reached the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York after Drago appealed her conviction, arguing that the trial court improperly denied her request to instruct the jury on the defense of a good faith claim of right.
The Ruling
The appellate court ruled that the trial court made a significant error by failing to instruct the jury on the good faith claim of right defense. The judges stated, "The charge must be given if there is evidence reasonably supportive of the defense, even if there is other evidence which, if credited, would negate it." This means that if there is any evidence that could support a defendant's claim, the jury must be instructed on that defense.
The court found that there was sufficient evidence to support Drago's claim of right defense. Testimony indicated that Drago had previously removed memorial items without incident and that she believed she was acting in good faith. The judges emphasized that the jury had sent notes questioning ownership of the items, indicating that they were considering the defense. The court concluded that the failure to instruct the jury on this defense constituted reversible error.
Impact
This ruling has significant implications for Drago and others in similar situations. By vacating the petit larceny conviction, the court has opened the door for a new trial where the jury can consider the defense of good faith claim of right. This could potentially change the outcome of the case, depending on how the new jury interprets the evidence presented.
Additionally, this decision may set a precedent for future cases involving claims of right. Defendants in similar situations may now have a clearer path to argue their case if they can present evidence supporting a good faith belief in their actions. This ruling reinforces the importance of proper jury instructions and the need for courts to consider all relevant defenses.
What's Next
The case will return to the Supreme Court of Suffolk County for a new trial on the petit larceny charge. It remains to be seen whether the prosecution will pursue the charge again or if any further legal actions will be taken by either party. Details were not available in the court filing regarding any related cases or potential appeals.