People v. Bishop

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Bishop

275 A.D.2d 376, 712 N.Y.S.2d 422, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8661

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

DecidedAugust 14, 2000

StatusPublished

This text of 275 A.D.2d 376 (People v. Bishop) 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. Bishop, 275 A.D.2d 376, 712 N.Y.S.2d 422, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8661 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Rosenzweig, J.), rendered March 3, 1998, convicting him of robbery in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see, People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Based on the evidence, the jury could have properly inferred that a “forcible stealing” took place (see, Penal Law § 160.00 [1]; People v White, 160 AD2d 970). Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15 [5]).

The Supreme Court correctly denied the defendant’s application for a missing witness charge since the defendant failed to adduce prima facie evidence that the missing witness was under the People’s control (see, People v Gonzalez, 68 NY2d 424).

The prosecutor’s summation comments did not constitute reversible error (see, People v Galloway, 54 NY2d 396). Santucci, J. P., S. Miller, Florio and McGinity, JJ., concur.

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

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Rosenzweig, J.), rendered March 3, 1998, convicting him of robbery in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see, People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Based on the evidence, the jury could have properly inferred that a “forcible stealing” took place (see, Penal Law § 160.00 [1]; People v White, 160 AD2d 970). Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15 [5]).

The Supreme Court correctly denied the defendant’s application for a missing witness charge since the defendant failed to adduce prima facie evidence that the missing witness was under the People’s control (see, People v Gonzalez, 68 NY2d 424).

The prosecutor’s summation comments did not constitute reversible error (see, People v Galloway, 54 NY2d 396). Santucci, J. P., S. Miller, Florio and McGinity, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

275 A.D.2d 376, 712 N.Y.S.2d 422, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8661, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-bishop-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack