People v. Chapman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Chapman

101 A.D.3d 406, 954 N.Y.2d 534

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

DecidedDecember 4, 2012

StatusPublished

This text of 101 A.D.3d 406 (People v. Chapman) 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. Chapman, 101 A.D.3d 406, 954 N.Y.2d 534 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

Regardless of whether the introduction of the uncharged crime evidence was error, it was harmless in the face of the overwhelming proof of defendant’s guilt. The victim clearly identified defendant as the robber both at a lineup and in court. She had an excellent opportunity to view defendant during the encounter because she was face to face with him in a well-lit store. Furthermore, the victim’s identification was corroborated [407]*407by the evidence uncovered at the time of defendant’s arrest, as well as the surveillance video of the robbery, which the jury viewed. Thus, there is no significant probability that the verdict would have been different if the trial court had excluded the uncharged crime evidence (see People v Arafet, 13 NY3d 460, 468 [2009]).

Defendant did not preserve his challenges to the court’s limiting instructions concerning the uncharged robbery, and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we find that these instructions adequately conveyed the appropriate standards. Concur — Tom, J.P., Sweeny, Acosta, DeGrasse and Richter, JJ.

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

Regardless of whether the introduction of the uncharged crime evidence was error, it was harmless in the face of the overwhelming proof of defendant’s guilt. The victim clearly identified defendant as the robber both at a lineup and in court. She had an excellent opportunity to view defendant during the encounter because she was face to face with him in a well-lit store. Furthermore, the victim’s identification was corroborated [407]*407by the evidence uncovered at the time of defendant’s arrest, as well as the surveillance video of the robbery, which the jury viewed. Thus, there is no significant probability that the verdict would have been different if the trial court had excluded the uncharged crime evidence (see People v Arafet, 13 NY3d 460, 468 [2009]).

Defendant did not preserve his challenges to the court’s limiting instructions concerning the uncharged robbery, and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we find that these instructions adequately conveyed the appropriate standards. Concur — Tom, J.P., Sweeny, Acosta, DeGrasse and Richter, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

101 A.D.3d 406, 954 N.Y.2d 534, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-chapman-nyappdiv-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack