People v. Cotto

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Cotto

189 A.D.2d 707, 592 N.Y.S.2d 918, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 666

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided January 26, 1993·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Rose Rubin, J.) rendered July 1, 1991, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second violent felony offender, to a term of 3 to 6 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defense counsel’s objection to a question asked of one of the officers concerning defendant’s response, if any, to a question as to whether defendant possessed a valid license for the weapon was sustained, and curative instructions issued. The curative instructions, together with the overwhelming evidence of guilt, rendered defendant’s response harmless (People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230).

Nor is there merit to defendant’s contention that the officers’ inconsistent testimony rendered their testimony incredible as a matter of law. These inconsistencies were for the jury to resolve (People v Mosley, 112 AD2d 812, affd 67 NY2d 985). Concur—Murphy, P. J., Milonas, Ellerin, Ross and Kassal, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Rose Rubin, J.) rendered July 1, 1991, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second violent felony offender, to a term of 3 to 6 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defense counsel’s objection to a question asked of one of the officers concerning defendant’s response, if any, to a question as to whether defendant possessed a valid license for the weapon was sustained, and curative instructions issued. The curative instructions, together with the overwhelming evidence of guilt, rendered defendant’s response harmless (People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230).

Nor is there merit to defendant’s contention that the officers’ inconsistent testimony rendered their testimony incredible as a matter of law. These inconsistencies were for the jury to resolve (People v Mosley, 112 AD2d 812, affd 67 NY2d 985). Concur—Murphy, P. J., Milonas, Ellerin, Ross and Kassal, JJ.

People v. Cotto, 189 A.D.2d 707, 592 N.Y.S.2d 918, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 666 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

189 A.D.2d 707 (People v. Cotto) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related