People v. Blanco

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Blanco

158 A.D.2d 347, 551 N.Y.S.2d 38, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1362

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

DecidedFebruary 13, 1990

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 158 A.D.2d 347 (People v. Blanco) 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. Blanco, 158 A.D.2d 347, 551 N.Y.S.2d 38, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1362 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

The victim was a 28-year-old self-described "street person” with a long history of mental illness and drug use. At the time of the incident, the victim was residing with another individual at the Mayfair Hotel in Manhattan. The victim was the only witness to testify to the crime itself; however, his account of the subsequent chase was corroborated by the arresting officer. Essentially, the victim testified that defendant and William Carrasquillo took $30 (a $20 bill and a $10 bill) from his pocket. Although neither defendant testified, based on their statements to the arresting officer, it was contended that the incident was really a drug transaction.

The defense conducted ample cross-examination of the victim concerning his prior drug use and mental history. The court’s rulings thereon did not constitute an abuse of discretion (People v Schwartzman, 24 NY2d 241, 244, cert denied 396 US 846). There appears no reason on this record to disturb the jury’s crediting of the victim’s testimony (People v Malizia, 62 NY2d 755, cert denied 469 US 932). Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Asch, Ellerin and Wallach, JJ.

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

The victim was a 28-year-old self-described "street person” with a long history of mental illness and drug use. At the time of the incident, the victim was residing with another individual at the Mayfair Hotel in Manhattan. The victim was the only witness to testify to the crime itself; however, his account of the subsequent chase was corroborated by the arresting officer. Essentially, the victim testified that defendant and William Carrasquillo took $30 (a $20 bill and a $10 bill) from his pocket. Although neither defendant testified, based on their statements to the arresting officer, it was contended that the incident was really a drug transaction.

The defense conducted ample cross-examination of the victim concerning his prior drug use and mental history. The court’s rulings thereon did not constitute an abuse of discretion (People v Schwartzman, 24 NY2d 241, 244, cert denied 396 US 846). There appears no reason on this record to disturb the jury’s crediting of the victim’s testimony (People v Malizia, 62 NY2d 755, cert denied 469 US 932). Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Asch, Ellerin and Wallach, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

158 A.D.2d 347, 551 N.Y.S.2d 38, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1362, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-blanco-nyappdiv-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack