People v. Elkins

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Elkins

211 A.D.2d 921, 621 N.Y.S.2d 960, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 238

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

DecidedJanuary 12, 1995

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 211 A.D.2d 921 (People v. Elkins) 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. Elkins, 211 A.D.2d 921, 621 N.Y.S.2d 960, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 238 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Tompkins County (Barrett, J.), rendered June 11, 1992, upon a verdict convicting defendant of the crimes of scheme to defraud in the first degree and petit larceny (three counts).

Defendant was convicted after trial of scheme to defraud in the first degree and three counts of petit larceny, and sentenced to concurrent terms of one year in jail and restitution. On this appeal, defendant contends that County Court erred in its determination of a Sandoval issue and that the verdict is not supported by sufficient evidence.

[922]*922We find no abuse of discretion in County Court’s use of the Sandoval compromise to allow inquiry as to defendant’s conviction of six misdemeanors without questioning as to the types of crimes involved or the facts underlying those convictions. Further, we find that the jury could properly infer defendant’s fraudulent and criminal intent from the evidence presented at trial. The conviction was thus supported by sufficient evidence and not against the weight of the evidence.

Cardona, P. J., Mercure, White, Casey and Peters, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

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

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Tompkins County (Barrett, J.), rendered June 11, 1992, upon a verdict convicting defendant of the crimes of scheme to defraud in the first degree and petit larceny (three counts).

Defendant was convicted after trial of scheme to defraud in the first degree and three counts of petit larceny, and sentenced to concurrent terms of one year in jail and restitution. On this appeal, defendant contends that County Court erred in its determination of a Sandoval issue and that the verdict is not supported by sufficient evidence.

[922]*922We find no abuse of discretion in County Court’s use of the Sandoval compromise to allow inquiry as to defendant’s conviction of six misdemeanors without questioning as to the types of crimes involved or the facts underlying those convictions. Further, we find that the jury could properly infer defendant’s fraudulent and criminal intent from the evidence presented at trial. The conviction was thus supported by sufficient evidence and not against the weight of the evidence.

Cardona, P. J., Mercure, White, Casey and Peters, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

211 A.D.2d 921, 621 N.Y.S.2d 960, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 238, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-elkins-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack