People v. Garner

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Garner

159 A.D.2d 970, 555 N.Y.S.2d 633, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3263

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided March 16, 1990·Published

Opinion

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant’s argument that evidence relating to his bootprints was improperly admitted is unpreserved for review. Defense counsel not only failed to object to testimony concerning the bootprints but joined in the motion to admit the photographs of the bootprints. We find that the proof of identity in this circumstantial evidence case was legally sufficient (see, People v Brooks, 92 AD2d 1035; see generally, People v Marin, 65 NY2d 741, 742), and that defen[971] dant’s sentence was not harsh and excessive. (Appeal from judgment of Supreme Court, Erie County, Marshall, J. — burglary, second degree.) Present — Denman, J. P., Pine, Lawton, Davis and Lowery, JJ.

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

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant’s argument that evidence relating to his bootprints was improperly admitted is unpreserved for review. Defense counsel not only failed to object to testimony concerning the bootprints but joined in the motion to admit the photographs of the bootprints. We find that the proof of identity in this circumstantial evidence case was legally sufficient (see, People v Brooks, 92 AD2d 1035; see generally, People v Marin, 65 NY2d 741, 742), and that defen[971] dant’s sentence was not harsh and excessive. (Appeal from judgment of Supreme Court, Erie County, Marshall, J. — burglary, second degree.) Present — Denman, J. P., Pine, Lawton, Davis and Lowery, JJ.

People v. Garner, 159 A.D.2d 970, 555 N.Y.S.2d 633, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3263 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

159 A.D.2d 970 (People v. Garner) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related