People v. Hogue

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Hogue

179 A.D.2d 1042

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

DecidedJanuary 31, 1992

StatusPublished

This text of 179 A.D.2d 1042 (People v. Hogue) 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. Hogue, 179 A.D.2d 1042 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

[1043]*1043Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People (People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620, 621), we conclude that defendant’s conviction is supported by legally sufficient evidence. In addition, Supreme Court properly denied defendant’s motion to sever (see, CPL 200.20 [2] [b]). The fact that defendant was acquitted on 36 of the 42 counts in the indictment demonstrates that the jury was able to consider the evidence separately and that no prejudice resulted from denial of the severance application (see, People v Lowe, 91 AD2d 1100, 1101).

The sentence should not be disturbed. It is neither harsh nor excessive and the court acted within its discretionary power to order restitution (see, People v Hall-Wilson, 69 NY2d 154, 158). (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Erie County, Marshall, J. — Criminal Possession Forged Instrument, 2nd Degree.) Present — Callahan, J. P., Doerr, Green, Lawton and Davis, JJ.

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

[1043]*1043Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People (People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620, 621), we conclude that defendant’s conviction is supported by legally sufficient evidence. In addition, Supreme Court properly denied defendant’s motion to sever (see, CPL 200.20 [2] [b]). The fact that defendant was acquitted on 36 of the 42 counts in the indictment demonstrates that the jury was able to consider the evidence separately and that no prejudice resulted from denial of the severance application (see, People v Lowe, 91 AD2d 1100, 1101).

The sentence should not be disturbed. It is neither harsh nor excessive and the court acted within its discretionary power to order restitution (see, People v Hall-Wilson, 69 NY2d 154, 158). (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Erie County, Marshall, J. — Criminal Possession Forged Instrument, 2nd Degree.) Present — Callahan, J. P., Doerr, Green, Lawton and Davis, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

179 A.D.2d 1042, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-hogue-nyappdiv-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack