People v. Chobot

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Chobot

182 A.D.2d 495, 582 N.Y.S.2d 19, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5964

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

DecidedApril 14, 1992

StatusPublished

This text of 182 A.D.2d 495 (People v. Chobot) 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. Chobot, 182 A.D.2d 495, 582 N.Y.S.2d 19, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5964 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan C. Sudolnick, J.), rendered December 18, 1989, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of burglary in the second degree and possession of burglar’s tools, and sentencing him as a second violent felony offender, to concurrent terms of imprisonment of 10 years to life and one year respectively, unanimously affirmed.

In this trial for burglary, the trial court properly excluded a statement allegedly made to the police by the codefendant (who was not jointly tried with defendant), that she had permission to enter the apartment. The codefendant’s statement was made after she and defendant had exited the burglarized apartment, and thus was not relevant to defendant’s state of mind when he entered the apartment. We have considered the remaining arguments, including those raised in defendant’s pro se supplemental brief, and find them to be without merit. Concur — Ellerin, J. P., Asch, Kassal and Smith, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan C. Sudolnick, J.), rendered December 18, 1989, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of burglary in the second degree and possession of burglar’s tools, and sentencing him as a second violent felony offender, to concurrent terms of imprisonment of 10 years to life and one year respectively, unanimously affirmed.

In this trial for burglary, the trial court properly excluded a statement allegedly made to the police by the codefendant (who was not jointly tried with defendant), that she had permission to enter the apartment. The codefendant’s statement was made after she and defendant had exited the burglarized apartment, and thus was not relevant to defendant’s state of mind when he entered the apartment. We have considered the remaining arguments, including those raised in defendant’s pro se supplemental brief, and find them to be without merit. Concur — Ellerin, J. P., Asch, Kassal and Smith, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

182 A.D.2d 495, 582 N.Y.S.2d 19, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5964, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-chobot-nyappdiv-1992.