People v. Huggins

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Huggins

228 A.D.2d 241, 644 N.Y.2d 22, 644 N.Y.S.2d 22, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6453

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

DecidedJune 11, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 228 A.D.2d 241 (People v. Huggins) 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. Huggins, 228 A.D.2d 241, 644 N.Y.2d 22, 644 N.Y.S.2d 22, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6453 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution and giving it the benefit of every reasonable inference (People v Malizia, 62 NY2d 755, cert denied 469 US 932), the evidence that the complainant attempted to prevent the theft of his car by standing at the driver’s side door with his hands pressed against the window, and, in order to avoid being struck by the car, was forced to jump back when defendant turned and pulled out of the parking spot, was sufficient to satisfy the element of forcible taking. The jury reasonably could have found that defendant’s act of driving the car, while the complainant was resisting the theft by standing in the way, was an act intended, in part, to overcome resistance to the taking. Moreover, upon an independent review of the facts, the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see, People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490).

There was no reasonable view of the evidence supporting either of the lesser included offenses requested by defendant (CPL 1.20 [37]; People v Glover, 57 NY2d 61). Concur—Milonas, J. P., Rosenberger, Wallach, Ross and Tom, JJ.

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

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution and giving it the benefit of every reasonable inference (People v Malizia, 62 NY2d 755, cert denied 469 US 932), the evidence that the complainant attempted to prevent the theft of his car by standing at the driver’s side door with his hands pressed against the window, and, in order to avoid being struck by the car, was forced to jump back when defendant turned and pulled out of the parking spot, was sufficient to satisfy the element of forcible taking. The jury reasonably could have found that defendant’s act of driving the car, while the complainant was resisting the theft by standing in the way, was an act intended, in part, to overcome resistance to the taking. Moreover, upon an independent review of the facts, the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see, People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490).

There was no reasonable view of the evidence supporting either of the lesser included offenses requested by defendant (CPL 1.20 [37]; People v Glover, 57 NY2d 61). Concur—Milonas, J. P., Rosenberger, Wallach, Ross and Tom, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

228 A.D.2d 241, 644 N.Y.2d 22, 644 N.Y.S.2d 22, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6453, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-huggins-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack