People v. Francois

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Francois

16 A.D.3d 699, 794 N.Y.S.2d 59, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3322

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

DecidedMarch 28, 2005

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 16 A.D.3d 699 (People v. Francois) 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. Francois, 16 A.D.3d 699, 794 N.Y.S.2d 59, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3322 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Starkey, J.), rendered May 28, 2003, convicting him of burglary in the third degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant contends that he was deprived of a fair trial by the admission of testimony that the bag he was carrying at the time of his arrest contained several small items of personal property not belonging to him, in addition to items connected to the charged burglaries, inviting speculation that he was involved in other uncharged burglaries. Even assuming that the potential prejudicial impact of this testimony outweighed its probative value, any error was harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of the defendant’s guilt (see People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230 [1975]; People v Williams, 12 AD3d 183 [2004], lv denied 4 NY3d 769 [ 2005]; People v Woodall, 289 AD2d 1008 [2001]; People v Williams, 262 AD2d 667 [1999]). Schmidt, J.P., Krausman, Rivera and Fisher, 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 (Starkey, J.), rendered May 28, 2003, convicting him of burglary in the third degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant contends that he was deprived of a fair trial by the admission of testimony that the bag he was carrying at the time of his arrest contained several small items of personal property not belonging to him, in addition to items connected to the charged burglaries, inviting speculation that he was involved in other uncharged burglaries. Even assuming that the potential prejudicial impact of this testimony outweighed its probative value, any error was harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of the defendant’s guilt (see People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230 [1975]; People v Williams, 12 AD3d 183 [2004], lv denied 4 NY3d 769 [ 2005]; People v Woodall, 289 AD2d 1008 [2001]; People v Williams, 262 AD2d 667 [1999]). Schmidt, J.P., Krausman, Rivera and Fisher, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

16 A.D.3d 699, 794 N.Y.S.2d 59, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3322, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-francois-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack