People v. Evans

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Evans

56 A.D.2d 572, 866 N.Y.S.2d 877

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

DecidedNovember 12, 2008

StatusPublished

This text of 56 A.D.2d 572 (People v. Evans) 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. Evans, 56 A.D.2d 572, 866 N.Y.S.2d 877 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

— Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County (Robbins, J.), rendered March 14, 2007, convicting him of promoting prison contraband in the first degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Upon our independent review pursuant to CPL 470.15 (5), we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633 [2006]).

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, he was not entitled to a missing witness charge (see generally People v Savinon, 100 NY2d 192, 196 [2003]; People v Gonzalez, 68 NY2d 424, 427 [1986]; see also People v Marino, 21 AD3d 430, 432 [2005]). Skelos, J.P., Ritter, Garni and Dickerson, 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, Nassau County (Robbins, J.), rendered March 14, 2007, convicting him of promoting prison contraband in the first degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Upon our independent review pursuant to CPL 470.15 (5), we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633 [2006]).

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, he was not entitled to a missing witness charge (see generally People v Savinon, 100 NY2d 192, 196 [2003]; People v Gonzalez, 68 NY2d 424, 427 [1986]; see also People v Marino, 21 AD3d 430, 432 [2005]). Skelos, J.P., Ritter, Garni and Dickerson, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

56 A.D.2d 572, 866 N.Y.S.2d 877, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-evans-nyappdiv-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack