People v. Colangelo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Colangelo

105 A.D.2d 1073, 482 N.Y.S.2d 176, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 21155

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

DecidedNovember 7, 1984

StatusPublished

This text of 105 A.D.2d 1073 (People v. Colangelo) 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. Colangelo, 105 A.D.2d 1073, 482 N.Y.S.2d 176, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 21155 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant’s sole contention on appeal from his conviction for criminal possession of stolen property, second degree, arising from alleged possession of a stolen credit card, is that the trial court unduly restricted his summation by prohibiting him from contending that defendant may have possessed the card as a result of mistake. During the People’s case the prosecution had made an offer to prove as part of its case certain prior convictions. Inasmuch as the defendant had not urged mistake or accident or any other defense which would make such proof admissible (see, e.g., People v Molineaux, 168 NY 264, 293, 300-305), the court correctly declined the offer. Prior to summation the court ruled that if defense counsel raised the defense of mistake on summation, it would permit the People to introduce proof of defendant’s prior convictions to rebut that defense. Under the circumstances the ruling was entirely proper. (Appeal from judgment of Supreme Court, Erie County, Flynn, J. — criminal possession of stolen property, second degree.) Present — Hancock, Jr., J. P., Doerr, Boomer, Green and Moule, JJ.

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

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant’s sole contention on appeal from his conviction for criminal possession of stolen property, second degree, arising from alleged possession of a stolen credit card, is that the trial court unduly restricted his summation by prohibiting him from contending that defendant may have possessed the card as a result of mistake. During the People’s case the prosecution had made an offer to prove as part of its case certain prior convictions. Inasmuch as the defendant had not urged mistake or accident or any other defense which would make such proof admissible (see, e.g., People v Molineaux, 168 NY 264, 293, 300-305), the court correctly declined the offer. Prior to summation the court ruled that if defense counsel raised the defense of mistake on summation, it would permit the People to introduce proof of defendant’s prior convictions to rebut that defense. Under the circumstances the ruling was entirely proper. (Appeal from judgment of Supreme Court, Erie County, Flynn, J. — criminal possession of stolen property, second degree.) Present — Hancock, Jr., J. P., Doerr, Boomer, Green and Moule, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

105 A.D.2d 1073, 482 N.Y.S.2d 176, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 21155, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-colangelo-nyappdiv-1984.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack