People v. Goldthwait

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Goldthwait

202 A.D.2d 975, 610 N.Y.S.2d 118, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3331

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

DecidedMarch 11, 1994

StatusPublished

This text of 202 A.D.2d 975 (People v. Goldthwait) 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. Goldthwait, 202 A.D.2d 975, 610 N.Y.S.2d 118, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3331 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: On appeal from his conviction of second degree burglary and petit larceny, defendant contends that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence. Contrary to defendant’s argument, the footprint evidence was not critical to the People’s case, but merely buttressed an otherwise strong identification. The victim’s neighbor had ample opportunity to identify defendant because [976]*976he observed him for an estimated five minutes before the crime and on at least three occasions within one hour after the crime. Contrary to defendant’s contention, the failure of police to recover the fruits of the crime and clothing worn by defendant is of minimal significance because defendant was not arrested until two days after the crime. In contrast to the People’s strong case, the alibi defense was weak. Thus, the jury did not fail to give the evidence the weight it should have been accorded (see, People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495). (Appeal from Judgment of Onondaga County Court, Cunningham, J. — Burglary, 2nd Degree.) Present — Denman, P. J., Pine, Fallon, Callahan and Davis, JJ.

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

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: On appeal from his conviction of second degree burglary and petit larceny, defendant contends that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence. Contrary to defendant’s argument, the footprint evidence was not critical to the People’s case, but merely buttressed an otherwise strong identification. The victim’s neighbor had ample opportunity to identify defendant because [976]*976he observed him for an estimated five minutes before the crime and on at least three occasions within one hour after the crime. Contrary to defendant’s contention, the failure of police to recover the fruits of the crime and clothing worn by defendant is of minimal significance because defendant was not arrested until two days after the crime. In contrast to the People’s strong case, the alibi defense was weak. Thus, the jury did not fail to give the evidence the weight it should have been accorded (see, People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495). (Appeal from Judgment of Onondaga County Court, Cunningham, J. — Burglary, 2nd Degree.) Present — Denman, P. J., Pine, Fallon, Callahan and Davis, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

202 A.D.2d 975, 610 N.Y.S.2d 118, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3331, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-goldthwait-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack