People v. Conwell

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Conwell

115 A.D.2d 552, 496 N.Y.S.2d 75, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 54960

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

DecidedDecember 9, 1985

StatusPublished

This text of 115 A.D.2d 552 (People v. Conwell) 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. Conwell, 115 A.D.2d 552, 496 N.Y.S.2d 75, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 54960 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Kooper, J.), rendered October 15, 1981, convicting him of murder in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and sentencing him to concurrent terms of imprisonment of 25 years to life and 5 to 15 years, respectively.

Judgment affirmed.

Any prejudice to defendant from the prosecution witness’s rebuttal testimony that he had been watching defendant at the time of the murder because defendant was a suspect in an unrelated burglary was vitiated by the witness’s repeated statements that he subsequently learned that defendant was, in fact, not involved in that burglary.

Under the circumstances of this case, the sentence imposed was not excessive. Gibbons, J. P., Bracken, Lawrence and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Kooper, J.), rendered October 15, 1981, convicting him of murder in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and sentencing him to concurrent terms of imprisonment of 25 years to life and 5 to 15 years, respectively.

Judgment affirmed.

Any prejudice to defendant from the prosecution witness’s rebuttal testimony that he had been watching defendant at the time of the murder because defendant was a suspect in an unrelated burglary was vitiated by the witness’s repeated statements that he subsequently learned that defendant was, in fact, not involved in that burglary.

Under the circumstances of this case, the sentence imposed was not excessive. Gibbons, J. P., Bracken, Lawrence and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

115 A.D.2d 552, 496 N.Y.S.2d 75, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 54960, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-conwell-nyappdiv-1985.