People v. DeMarco

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. DeMarco

227 A.D.2d 106, 641 N.Y.S.2d 312, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4731

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

DecidedMay 2, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 227 A.D.2d 106 (People v. DeMarco) 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. DeMarco, 227 A.D.2d 106, 641 N.Y.S.2d 312, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4731 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Alfred Kleiman, J.), rendered January 14, 1994, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of burglary in the second degree and possession of burglar’s tools, and sentencing him, as a persistent violent felony offender, to concurrent prison terms of 8 years to life and 1 year, respectively, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s claim that the court should have given a circumstantial evidence charge is unpreserved for appellate review as a matter of law (People v Battle, 198 AD2d 112, lv denied 83 NY2d 802), and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. If we were to review it, we would find that such a charge was not warranted since there was both direct and circumstantial evidence of defendant’s guilt, the direct evidence including the police officers’ observation of defendant loading stolen property into a cart and the broken locks on the basement door (supra). Similarly unpreserved is defendant’s contention that the prosecutor improperly instructed the jury on circumstantial evidence during voir dire (People v Rodriguez, 220 AD2d 208, 209), and we decline to review it in the interest of justice.

Defendant’s contention concerning the suppression ruling is without merit.

We perceive no abuse of discretion in sentencing. Concur— Murphy, P. J., Milonas, Williams, Tom and Mazzarelli, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Alfred Kleiman, J.), rendered January 14, 1994, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of burglary in the second degree and possession of burglar’s tools, and sentencing him, as a persistent violent felony offender, to concurrent prison terms of 8 years to life and 1 year, respectively, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s claim that the court should have given a circumstantial evidence charge is unpreserved for appellate review as a matter of law (People v Battle, 198 AD2d 112, lv denied 83 NY2d 802), and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. If we were to review it, we would find that such a charge was not warranted since there was both direct and circumstantial evidence of defendant’s guilt, the direct evidence including the police officers’ observation of defendant loading stolen property into a cart and the broken locks on the basement door (supra). Similarly unpreserved is defendant’s contention that the prosecutor improperly instructed the jury on circumstantial evidence during voir dire (People v Rodriguez, 220 AD2d 208, 209), and we decline to review it in the interest of justice.

Defendant’s contention concerning the suppression ruling is without merit.

We perceive no abuse of discretion in sentencing. Concur— Murphy, P. J., Milonas, Williams, Tom and Mazzarelli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

227 A.D.2d 106, 641 N.Y.S.2d 312, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4731, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-demarco-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack