People v. Betances

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Betances

165 A.D.2d 754

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

DecidedSeptember 18, 1990

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 165 A.D.2d 754 (People v. Betances) 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. Betances, 165 A.D.2d 754 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment of the Supreme Court, Bronx County (Elbert C. Hinkson, J.), rendered February 11, 1987, convicting defendant, after trial by jury, of robbery in the first degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree and sentencing him to concurrent terms of from 10 to 20 years and 3 Vi to 7 years, respectively, is unanimously affirmed.

The People’s loss of certain evidence was the result of inadvertence. Defendant has failed to allege any prejudice arising from the failure to preserve this evidence, in support of his Rosario claim. (People v Martinez, 71 NY2d 937, 940.) Moreover, the overwhelming evidence of defendant’s guilt coupled with his inability to attribute any significance to the missing evidence support our conclusion that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant’s motion for a mistrial. (People v Haupt, 71 NY2d 929, 931.)

We reject defendant’s claim that the trial court improperly failed to charge the jury, as requested by both the defense and the prosecution, on the voluntariness of defendant’s pretrial statements, pursuant to CPL 710.70. Notwithstanding the parties’ agreement, such a charge is inappropriate where defendant has failed to introduce evidence at trial contesting voluntariness. (People v Graham, 55 NY2d 144, 147.)

Defendant has failed to demonstrate that the sentencing court abused its discretion.

Concur — Murphy, P. J., Ross, Carro and Rosenberger, JJ.

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

Judgment of the Supreme Court, Bronx County (Elbert C. Hinkson, J.), rendered February 11, 1987, convicting defendant, after trial by jury, of robbery in the first degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree and sentencing him to concurrent terms of from 10 to 20 years and 3 Vi to 7 years, respectively, is unanimously affirmed.

The People’s loss of certain evidence was the result of inadvertence. Defendant has failed to allege any prejudice arising from the failure to preserve this evidence, in support of his Rosario claim. (People v Martinez, 71 NY2d 937, 940.) Moreover, the overwhelming evidence of defendant’s guilt coupled with his inability to attribute any significance to the missing evidence support our conclusion that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant’s motion for a mistrial. (People v Haupt, 71 NY2d 929, 931.)

We reject defendant’s claim that the trial court improperly failed to charge the jury, as requested by both the defense and the prosecution, on the voluntariness of defendant’s pretrial statements, pursuant to CPL 710.70. Notwithstanding the parties’ agreement, such a charge is inappropriate where defendant has failed to introduce evidence at trial contesting voluntariness. (People v Graham, 55 NY2d 144, 147.)

Defendant has failed to demonstrate that the sentencing court abused its discretion.

Concur — Murphy, P. J., Ross, Carro and Rosenberger, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

165 A.D.2d 754, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-betances-nyappdiv-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack