People v. Bonnemere

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Bonnemere

308 A.D.2d 418, 764 N.Y.S.2d 823, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9976

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

DecidedSeptember 30, 2003

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 308 A.D.2d 418 (People v. Bonnemere) 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. Bonnemere, 308 A.D.2d 418, 764 N.Y.S.2d 823, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9976 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Laura Drager, J.), rendered December 21, 2000, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of two counts each of robbery in the first and second degrees, and sentencing him, as a second violent felony offender, to concurrent terms of 12 years and 10 years, consecutive to concurrent terms of 10 years and 8 years, unanimously affirmed.

The victims’ testimony regarding threats and bribe offers made to them by a person claiming to be defendant’s cousin was properly received because there was enough circumstantial evidence to connect this conduct to defendant and to permit the jury to draw an inference as to his consciousness of guilt (see People v Cotto, 222 AD2d 345 [1995], lv denied 88 NY2d 846 [1996]). The court was not required to conduct a hearing [419]*419prior to receiving this testimony, and defendant was not prejudiced by the absence of such a hearing.

In light of the testimony of one of the victims that defendant had used what looked like a nine millimeter pistol, the court properly admitted the 26 nine millimeter bullets found in the codefendant’s apartment four days after the robbery (see People v Jimenez, 267 AD2d 60 [1999], lv denied 94 NY2d 921 [2000]; People v Vasquez, 214 AD2d 93 [1995], lv denied 88 NY2d 943 [1996]).

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. Concur— Tom, J.P., Sullivan, Rosenberger, Lerner and Friedman, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Laura Drager, J.), rendered December 21, 2000, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of two counts each of robbery in the first and second degrees, and sentencing him, as a second violent felony offender, to concurrent terms of 12 years and 10 years, consecutive to concurrent terms of 10 years and 8 years, unanimously affirmed.

The victims’ testimony regarding threats and bribe offers made to them by a person claiming to be defendant’s cousin was properly received because there was enough circumstantial evidence to connect this conduct to defendant and to permit the jury to draw an inference as to his consciousness of guilt (see People v Cotto, 222 AD2d 345 [1995], lv denied 88 NY2d 846 [1996]). The court was not required to conduct a hearing [419]*419prior to receiving this testimony, and defendant was not prejudiced by the absence of such a hearing.

In light of the testimony of one of the victims that defendant had used what looked like a nine millimeter pistol, the court properly admitted the 26 nine millimeter bullets found in the codefendant’s apartment four days after the robbery (see People v Jimenez, 267 AD2d 60 [1999], lv denied 94 NY2d 921 [2000]; People v Vasquez, 214 AD2d 93 [1995], lv denied 88 NY2d 943 [1996]).

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. Concur— Tom, J.P., Sullivan, Rosenberger, Lerner and Friedman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

308 A.D.2d 418, 764 N.Y.S.2d 823, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9976, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-bonnemere-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack