People v. Douglas

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Douglas

128 A.D.2d 718, 513 N.Y.S.2d 211, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 44402

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

DecidedMarch 16, 1987

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 128 A.D.2d 718 (People v. Douglas) 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. Douglas, 128 A.D.2d 718, 513 N.Y.S.2d 211, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 44402 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Posner, J.), rendered October 22, 1985, convicting him of grand larceny in the third degree and jostling, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant contends that certain testimony was improperly admitted because it permitted the jury to speculate that he had been involved in uncharged, unspecified criminal conduct. We disagree. Testimony as to uncharged, unconnected criminal conduct is admissible, inter alia, to establish that two perpetrators were acting in concert (see, People v Jackson, 39 NY2d 64, 68; cf., People v Kay, 120 AD2d 615, 616). Accordingly, the trial court did not err in permitting the testimony since it established a relationship between the defendant and his codefendant, Michael Peoples. Bracken, J. P., Rubin, Sullivan and Harwood, 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, Queens County (Posner, J.), rendered October 22, 1985, convicting him of grand larceny in the third degree and jostling, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant contends that certain testimony was improperly admitted because it permitted the jury to speculate that he had been involved in uncharged, unspecified criminal conduct. We disagree. Testimony as to uncharged, unconnected criminal conduct is admissible, inter alia, to establish that two perpetrators were acting in concert (see, People v Jackson, 39 NY2d 64, 68; cf., People v Kay, 120 AD2d 615, 616). Accordingly, the trial court did not err in permitting the testimony since it established a relationship between the defendant and his codefendant, Michael Peoples. Bracken, J. P., Rubin, Sullivan and Harwood, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

128 A.D.2d 718, 513 N.Y.S.2d 211, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 44402, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-douglas-nyappdiv-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack