People v. Ellison

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Ellison

8 A.D.3d 400, 777 N.Y.S.2d 760, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7775

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

DecidedJune 7, 2004

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 8 A.D.3d 400 (People v. Ellison) 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. Ellison, 8 A.D.3d 400, 777 N.Y.S.2d 760, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7775 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Tomei, J.), rendered August 21, 2002, [401]*401convicting him of robbery in the second degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant was convicted of two counts of robbery in the second degree. The proof at trial included the eyewitness identification of the defendant by a victim and evidence that the defendant was in possession of a necklace with a medallion stolen from the victim when apprehended shortly after the crime. After both sides rested, the defendant requested a jury charge he contended was relevant to the issue of “cross-racial identification,” based on State v Cromedy (158 NJ 112, 727 A2d 457 [1999]) and Johnson, Cross-Racial Identification Errors In Criminal Cases (69 Cornell L Rev 934 [1984]). However, on the record presented, the Supreme Court properly denied the defendant’s requested jury charge. Ritter, J.P., Altman, Mastro and Skelos, 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 (Tomei, J.), rendered August 21, 2002, [401]*401convicting him of robbery in the second degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant was convicted of two counts of robbery in the second degree. The proof at trial included the eyewitness identification of the defendant by a victim and evidence that the defendant was in possession of a necklace with a medallion stolen from the victim when apprehended shortly after the crime. After both sides rested, the defendant requested a jury charge he contended was relevant to the issue of “cross-racial identification,” based on State v Cromedy (158 NJ 112, 727 A2d 457 [1999]) and Johnson, Cross-Racial Identification Errors In Criminal Cases (69 Cornell L Rev 934 [1984]). However, on the record presented, the Supreme Court properly denied the defendant’s requested jury charge. Ritter, J.P., Altman, Mastro and Skelos, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

8 A.D.3d 400, 777 N.Y.S.2d 760, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7775, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-ellison-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack