People v. Bennett

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Bennett

147 A.D.2d 967, 537 N.Y.S.2d 416, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1295

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

DecidedFebruary 3, 1989

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 147 A.D.2d 967 (People v. Bennett) 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. Bennett, 147 A.D.2d 967, 537 N.Y.S.2d 416, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1295 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

— Judgment unanimously reversed on the law and indictment dismissed. Memorandum: The court erred in charging, over defendant’s objection, that the jury could consider the crime of robbery in the third degree (Penal Law § 160.05) as a lesser included offense of [968]*968robbery in the second degree under the first count of the indictment, which alleged that he forcibly stole property while aided by another person actually present (see, Penal Law § 160.10 [1]). There is no reasonable view of the evidence by which defendant was guilty of forcibly stealing property but that he was not aided by another person actually present (see, People v Glover, 57 NY2d 61, 63; see also, People v Hicks, 134 AD2d 909, lv denied 70 NY2d 956). (Appeal from judgment of Supreme Court, Erie County, Marshall, J. — robbery, third degree.) Present — Callahan, J. P., Doerr, Green, Pine and Lawton, JJ.

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

— Judgment unanimously reversed on the law and indictment dismissed. Memorandum: The court erred in charging, over defendant’s objection, that the jury could consider the crime of robbery in the third degree (Penal Law § 160.05) as a lesser included offense of [968]*968robbery in the second degree under the first count of the indictment, which alleged that he forcibly stole property while aided by another person actually present (see, Penal Law § 160.10 [1]). There is no reasonable view of the evidence by which defendant was guilty of forcibly stealing property but that he was not aided by another person actually present (see, People v Glover, 57 NY2d 61, 63; see also, People v Hicks, 134 AD2d 909, lv denied 70 NY2d 956). (Appeal from judgment of Supreme Court, Erie County, Marshall, J. — robbery, third degree.) Present — Callahan, J. P., Doerr, Green, Pine and Lawton, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

147 A.D.2d 967, 537 N.Y.S.2d 416, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1295, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-bennett-nyappdiv-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack