People v. Hernandez

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Hernandez

118 A.D.2d 729, 500 N.Y.S.2d 61, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 54591

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

DecidedMarch 17, 1986

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 118 A.D.2d 729 (People v. Hernandez) 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. Hernandez, 118 A.D.2d 729, 500 N.Y.S.2d 61, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 54591 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

— Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Kramer, J.), rendered January 25, 1984, convicting him of criminal possession of stolen property in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Judgment affirmed.

No reversible error was committed in the trial court’s decision to allow the People to introduce evidence of the defendant’s attempt to procure false testimony from the complainant. Such evidence, indicative of the defendant’s consciousness of guilt, was supported "by other proof of a truly substantial character” (People v Leyra, 1 NY2d 199, 209; People v Shaw, 111 AD2d 415) and, thus, was not prejudicial.

The defendant’s claim of error with respect to the trial court’s charge has not been preserved for appellate review (see, People v Aleschus, 55 NY2d 775) and an exercise of this court’s discretion in the interest of justice is unwarranted. Lazer, J. P., Rubin, Lawrence and Kooper, 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 (Kramer, J.), rendered January 25, 1984, convicting him of criminal possession of stolen property in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Judgment affirmed.

No reversible error was committed in the trial court’s decision to allow the People to introduce evidence of the defendant’s attempt to procure false testimony from the complainant. Such evidence, indicative of the defendant’s consciousness of guilt, was supported "by other proof of a truly substantial character” (People v Leyra, 1 NY2d 199, 209; People v Shaw, 111 AD2d 415) and, thus, was not prejudicial.

The defendant’s claim of error with respect to the trial court’s charge has not been preserved for appellate review (see, People v Aleschus, 55 NY2d 775) and an exercise of this court’s discretion in the interest of justice is unwarranted. Lazer, J. P., Rubin, Lawrence and Kooper, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

118 A.D.2d 729, 500 N.Y.S.2d 61, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 54591, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-hernandez-nyappdiv-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack