People v. Barrer

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Barrer

257 A.D.2d 364, 684 N.Y.S.2d 190, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 54

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJanuary 5, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 257 A.D.2d 364 (People v. Barrer) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Barrer, 257 A.D.2d 364, 684 N.Y.S.2d 190, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 54 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Barbara Newman, J.), rendered March 28, 1997, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of attempted robbery in the first degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 5 to 10 years, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was [365]*365not against the weight of the evidence (People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490). The complainant had ample opportunity to see his assailant both before and during the crime and spontaneously pointed out defendant to the police minutes later, and the complainant’s failure to identify defendant three years later at trial did not affect the sufficiency of the evidence. We see no reason to disturb the jury’s determinations concerning identification. Concur—Ellerin, J. P., Nardelli, Wallach and Rubin, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

—Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Barbara Newman, J.), rendered March 28, 1997, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of attempted robbery in the first degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 5 to 10 years, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was [365]*365not against the weight of the evidence (People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490). The complainant had ample opportunity to see his assailant both before and during the crime and spontaneously pointed out defendant to the police minutes later, and the complainant’s failure to identify defendant three years later at trial did not affect the sufficiency of the evidence. We see no reason to disturb the jury’s determinations concerning identification. Concur—Ellerin, J. P., Nardelli, Wallach and Rubin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

257 A.D.2d 364, 684 N.Y.S.2d 190, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 54, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-barrer-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack