People v. Eason

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Eason

111 A.D.2d 829, 490 N.Y.S.2d 251, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 50073

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

DecidedJune 10, 1985

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 111 A.D.2d 829 (People v. Eason) 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. Eason, 111 A.D.2d 829, 490 N.Y.S.2d 251, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 50073 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County (Delin, J.), rendered May 26, 1983, convicting him of attempted burglary in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to an indeterminate term of imprisonment of 3V2 to 7 years.

Judgment affirmed.

The totality of the evidence permits no reasonable hypothesis except that of defendant’s guilt. The. fact that defendant was identified by witnesses as the only person in the immediate vicinity of the house he was accused of attempting to burglarize, both before and after the alarm sounded, coupled with the fact that the rear door to the house was found open and its paint recently damaged, are facts which are all consistent with guilt and inconsistent with innocence, thereby justifying the jury’s inference of guilt (see, People v Kennedy, 47 NY2d 196). Mollen, P. J., Niehoff, Rubin and Lawrence, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County (Delin, J.), rendered May 26, 1983, convicting him of attempted burglary in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to an indeterminate term of imprisonment of 3V2 to 7 years.

Judgment affirmed.

The totality of the evidence permits no reasonable hypothesis except that of defendant’s guilt. The. fact that defendant was identified by witnesses as the only person in the immediate vicinity of the house he was accused of attempting to burglarize, both before and after the alarm sounded, coupled with the fact that the rear door to the house was found open and its paint recently damaged, are facts which are all consistent with guilt and inconsistent with innocence, thereby justifying the jury’s inference of guilt (see, People v Kennedy, 47 NY2d 196). Mollen, P. J., Niehoff, Rubin and Lawrence, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

111 A.D.2d 829, 490 N.Y.S.2d 251, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 50073, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-eason-nyappdiv-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack