People v. Dyes

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Dyes

122 A.D.2d 69, 504 N.Y.S.2d 223, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 59137

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

DecidedJuly 7, 1986

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 122 A.D.2d 69 (People v. Dyes) 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. Dyes, 122 A.D.2d 69, 504 N.Y.S.2d 223, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 59137 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

— Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Orange County (Cowhey, J.), rendered September 25, 1981, convicting him of murder in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Judgment affirmed.

The trial court did not abuse its discretion when it permitted the victim’s children to testify that they had witnessed incidents in which the defendant threatened and menaced their mother in the months before her murder. Evidence of such conduct by the defendant was relevant to prove his motive and intent (see, People v Ventimiglia, 52 NY2d 350; People v Molineux, 168 NY 264; People v Connally, 105 AD2d 797; see also, People v Jones, 99 NY 667). Due to the circumstantial nature of the evidence, proof of motive assumed great importance (see, People v Moore, 42 NY2d 421, cert denied 434 US 987). Thompson, J. P., Rubin, Eiber and Spatt, 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 County Court, Orange County (Cowhey, J.), rendered September 25, 1981, convicting him of murder in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Judgment affirmed.

The trial court did not abuse its discretion when it permitted the victim’s children to testify that they had witnessed incidents in which the defendant threatened and menaced their mother in the months before her murder. Evidence of such conduct by the defendant was relevant to prove his motive and intent (see, People v Ventimiglia, 52 NY2d 350; People v Molineux, 168 NY 264; People v Connally, 105 AD2d 797; see also, People v Jones, 99 NY 667). Due to the circumstantial nature of the evidence, proof of motive assumed great importance (see, People v Moore, 42 NY2d 421, cert denied 434 US 987). Thompson, J. P., Rubin, Eiber and Spatt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

122 A.D.2d 69, 504 N.Y.S.2d 223, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 59137, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-dyes-nyappdiv-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack