People v. Holmes

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Holmes

150 A.D.2d 491, 541 N.Y.S.2d 93, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6420

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

DecidedMay 8, 1989

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 150 A.D.2d 491 (People v. Holmes) 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. Holmes, 150 A.D.2d 491, 541 N.Y.S.2d 93, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6420 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Agresta, J.), rendered January 10, 1983, convicting him of murder in the second degree (four counts), robbery in the first degree, burglary in the first degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

As there was no evidence that a certain witness for the prosecution "may reasonably be considered to have participated in (a) The offense charged; or (b) An offense based upon the same or some of the same facts or conduct which constitute the offense charged” (CPL 60.22 [2]), the trial court did not err in refusing to charge the jury that that witness was an accomplice as a matter of law (see, People v Jones, 73 NY2d 902; People v Berger, 52 NY2d 214, 219) and did not err in refusing to submit to the jury the issue of whether he was an accomplice. We find no error in the additional instructions given to the jury on assessing the credibility of witnesses.

On this record, there was more than sufficient corroboration of the accomplice King’s testimony.

We have considered the defendant’s remaining contentions, including those raised in his supplemental pro se brief, and find them to be without merit. Brown, J. P., Kooper, Harwood and Rosenblatt, 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, Queens County (Agresta, J.), rendered January 10, 1983, convicting him of murder in the second degree (four counts), robbery in the first degree, burglary in the first degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

As there was no evidence that a certain witness for the prosecution "may reasonably be considered to have participated in (a) The offense charged; or (b) An offense based upon the same or some of the same facts or conduct which constitute the offense charged” (CPL 60.22 [2]), the trial court did not err in refusing to charge the jury that that witness was an accomplice as a matter of law (see, People v Jones, 73 NY2d 902; People v Berger, 52 NY2d 214, 219) and did not err in refusing to submit to the jury the issue of whether he was an accomplice. We find no error in the additional instructions given to the jury on assessing the credibility of witnesses.

On this record, there was more than sufficient corroboration of the accomplice King’s testimony.

We have considered the defendant’s remaining contentions, including those raised in his supplemental pro se brief, and find them to be without merit. Brown, J. P., Kooper, Harwood and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

150 A.D.2d 491, 541 N.Y.S.2d 93, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6420, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-holmes-nyappdiv-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack