People v. Devine

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Devine

300 A.D.2d 598, 751 N.Y.S.2d 868

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

DecidedDecember 23, 2002

StatusPublished

This text of 300 A.D.2d 598 (People v. Devine) 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. Devine, 300 A.D.2d 598, 751 N.Y.S.2d 868 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Gary, J.), rendered May 3, 2001, convicting him of criminal possession of stolen property in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, and a new trial is ordered.

The Supreme Court erred in admitting testimony of prior criminal acts by the defendant on the People’s direct case pursuant to People v Molineux (168 NY 264) to prove an absence of mistake (see People v Heiss, 221 AD2d 562, 563; People v Jones, 201 AD2d 504, 505). Because the error was not harmless, a new trial is ordered.

In light of this determination, we need not reach the defendant’s remaining contention. Ritter, J.P., Goldstein, Crane and Mastro, JJ., concur.

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

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Gary, J.), rendered May 3, 2001, convicting him of criminal possession of stolen property in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, and a new trial is ordered.

The Supreme Court erred in admitting testimony of prior criminal acts by the defendant on the People’s direct case pursuant to People v Molineux (168 NY 264) to prove an absence of mistake (see People v Heiss, 221 AD2d 562, 563; People v Jones, 201 AD2d 504, 505). Because the error was not harmless, a new trial is ordered.

In light of this determination, we need not reach the defendant’s remaining contention. Ritter, J.P., Goldstein, Crane and Mastro, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

300 A.D.2d 598, 751 N.Y.S.2d 868, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-devine-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack