People v. Fochler

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Fochler

242 A.D.2d 875, 665 N.Y.S.2d 599, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10417

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

DecidedSeptember 30, 1997

StatusPublished

This text of 242 A.D.2d 875 (People v. Fochler) 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. Fochler, 242 A.D.2d 875, 665 N.Y.S.2d 599, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10417 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him following a jury trial of burglary in the third degree. His contention that County Court erred in its charge on criminal intent is not preserved for our review (see, People v Tate, 200 AD2d 602, 603, lv denied 83 NY2d 811) and in any event lacks merit. The record establishes that the court sustained defendant’s objection to the admission of a screwdriver into evidence. The single question asked by the court of a defense witness did not deprive defendant of a fair trial (see, People v Jagopat, 216 AD2d 583, lv denied 87 NY2d 847). Finally, the proof is legally sufficient to establish that defendant intended to commit a crime at the time he unlawfully entered the factory (see, People v Owens, 204 AD2d 1055, 1056; People v Nuhibian, 201 AD2d 962, lv denied 83 NY2d 856; People v Haile, 128 AD2d 891). (Appeal from Judgment of Genesee County Court, Morton, J.—Burglary, 3rd Degree.) Present—Pine, J. P., Hayes, Wisner, Callahan and Doerr, JJ.

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

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him following a jury trial of burglary in the third degree. His contention that County Court erred in its charge on criminal intent is not preserved for our review (see, People v Tate, 200 AD2d 602, 603, lv denied 83 NY2d 811) and in any event lacks merit. The record establishes that the court sustained defendant’s objection to the admission of a screwdriver into evidence. The single question asked by the court of a defense witness did not deprive defendant of a fair trial (see, People v Jagopat, 216 AD2d 583, lv denied 87 NY2d 847). Finally, the proof is legally sufficient to establish that defendant intended to commit a crime at the time he unlawfully entered the factory (see, People v Owens, 204 AD2d 1055, 1056; People v Nuhibian, 201 AD2d 962, lv denied 83 NY2d 856; People v Haile, 128 AD2d 891). (Appeal from Judgment of Genesee County Court, Morton, J.—Burglary, 3rd Degree.) Present—Pine, J. P., Hayes, Wisner, Callahan and Doerr, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

242 A.D.2d 875, 665 N.Y.S.2d 599, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10417, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-fochler-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack