People v. Beardsley

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Beardsley

162 A.D.2d 962, 557 N.Y.S.2d 186, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9692

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

DecidedJune 22, 1990

StatusPublished

This text of 162 A.D.2d 962 (People v. Beardsley) 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. Beardsley, 162 A.D.2d 962, 557 N.Y.S.2d 186, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9692 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant argues that his convictions for third degree burglary and first degree criminal possession of stolen property must be reversed because the testimony of his accomplice was not sufficiently corroborated. We disagree. The accomplice’s testimony was corroborated by the testimony of two witnesses. They testified that several of the items stolen in the burglary were stored in defendant’s apartment the day after the crimes were committed. This evidence connected defendant with the commission of the crimes in such a way that the jury could reasonably conclude that the accomplice was telling the truth (see, People v Daniels, 37 NY2d 624, 629-630; People v Kress, 284 NY 452, 460-461; People v DeWispelaere, 148 AD2d 995, Iv denied 74 NY2d 738). (Appeal from judgment of Chautauqua County Court, Adams, J.—burglary, third degree.) Present—Callahan, J. P., Doerr, Boomer, Green and Balio, JJ.

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

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant argues that his convictions for third degree burglary and first degree criminal possession of stolen property must be reversed because the testimony of his accomplice was not sufficiently corroborated. We disagree. The accomplice’s testimony was corroborated by the testimony of two witnesses. They testified that several of the items stolen in the burglary were stored in defendant’s apartment the day after the crimes were committed. This evidence connected defendant with the commission of the crimes in such a way that the jury could reasonably conclude that the accomplice was telling the truth (see, People v Daniels, 37 NY2d 624, 629-630; People v Kress, 284 NY 452, 460-461; People v DeWispelaere, 148 AD2d 995, Iv denied 74 NY2d 738). (Appeal from judgment of Chautauqua County Court, Adams, J.—burglary, third degree.) Present—Callahan, J. P., Doerr, Boomer, Green and Balio, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

162 A.D.2d 962, 557 N.Y.S.2d 186, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9692, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-beardsley-nyappdiv-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack