People v. Cutanda

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Cutanda

184 A.D.2d 201, 586 N.Y.S.2d 744, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7566

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

DecidedJune 2, 1992

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 184 A.D.2d 201 (People v. Cutanda) 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. Cutanda, 184 A.D.2d 201, 586 N.Y.S.2d 744, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7566 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Dorothy Cropper, J.), rendered on October 30, 1990, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal possession of stolen property in the fourth degree and unauthorized use of a vehicle in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent prison terms of 2 to 4 years and 1 year, respectively, unanimously affirmed.

The trial court erred in precluding defendant from eliciting any testimony regarding Carmen Soto’s statements to him since the testimony was offered merely to suggest that defendant did not know the car was stolen (Richardson, Evidence §§203, 205 [Prince 10th ed]; People v Ricco, 56 NY2d 320). However, the error was harmless since the substance of such statements was in any event presented to the jury, and the evidence of defendant’s guilt was overwhelming (People v Valentin, 130 AD2d 529). Concur—Murphy, P. J., Ellerin, Kupferman, Ross and Rubin, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Dorothy Cropper, J.), rendered on October 30, 1990, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal possession of stolen property in the fourth degree and unauthorized use of a vehicle in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent prison terms of 2 to 4 years and 1 year, respectively, unanimously affirmed.

The trial court erred in precluding defendant from eliciting any testimony regarding Carmen Soto’s statements to him since the testimony was offered merely to suggest that defendant did not know the car was stolen (Richardson, Evidence §§203, 205 [Prince 10th ed]; People v Ricco, 56 NY2d 320). However, the error was harmless since the substance of such statements was in any event presented to the jury, and the evidence of defendant’s guilt was overwhelming (People v Valentin, 130 AD2d 529). Concur—Murphy, P. J., Ellerin, Kupferman, Ross and Rubin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

184 A.D.2d 201, 586 N.Y.S.2d 744, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7566, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-cutanda-nyappdiv-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack