People v. Chico

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Chico

233 A.D.2d 245, 650 N.Y.S.2d 150, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12161

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

DecidedNovember 26, 1996

StatusPublished

This text of 233 A.D.2d 245 (People v. Chico) 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. Chico, 233 A.D.2d 245, 650 N.Y.S.2d 150, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12161 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinions

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Gerald Sheindlin, J.), rendered August 2, 1994, convicting defendant, after a nonjury trial, of two counts of hindering prosecution in the first degree, and sentencing her to concurrent terms of 1 to 3 years, affirmed.

The evidence that defendant witnessed a person commit a class A felony, and that defendant, on at least two occasions, rendered criminal assistance to that person by warning him of impending discovery or apprehension, was legally sufficient to support a finding of defendant’s guilt of hindering prosecution in the first degree (Penal Law §§ 205.65, 205.50 [2]).

The corroboration statute (CPL 60.50) only requires "proof by independent evidence that the confessed crime occurred” (People v Hamilton 121 AD2d 395, 396). The requirement was satisfied here by the detectives’ testimony that defendant rendered criminal assistance to a murder suspect. That [246]*246defendant’s statements to the police, that she had witnessed the suspect commit the homicide, was the only evidence adduced at trial that a class A felony had been committed by that person did not render the corroboration insufficient since the corroboration requirement does not apply to the underlying felony (see, supra, at 395, citing People v Davis, 46 NY2d 780; People v Agard, 111 AD2d 821, lv denied 66 NY2d 613). Concur—Sullivan, Rubin, Ross and Nardelli, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Gerald Sheindlin, J.), rendered August 2, 1994, convicting defendant, after a nonjury trial, of two counts of hindering prosecution in the first degree, and sentencing her to concurrent terms of 1 to 3 years, affirmed.

The evidence that defendant witnessed a person commit a class A felony, and that defendant, on at least two occasions, rendered criminal assistance to that person by warning him of impending discovery or apprehension, was legally sufficient to support a finding of defendant’s guilt of hindering prosecution in the first degree (Penal Law §§ 205.65, 205.50 [2]).

The corroboration statute (CPL 60.50) only requires "proof by independent evidence that the confessed crime occurred” (People v Hamilton 121 AD2d 395, 396). The requirement was satisfied here by the detectives’ testimony that defendant rendered criminal assistance to a murder suspect. That [246]*246defendant’s statements to the police, that she had witnessed the suspect commit the homicide, was the only evidence adduced at trial that a class A felony had been committed by that person did not render the corroboration insufficient since the corroboration requirement does not apply to the underlying felony (see, supra, at 395, citing People v Davis, 46 NY2d 780; People v Agard, 111 AD2d 821, lv denied 66 NY2d 613). Concur—Sullivan, Rubin, Ross and Nardelli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

233 A.D.2d 245, 650 N.Y.S.2d 150, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12161, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-chico-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack