People v. Inge

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Inge

162 A.D.2d 290, 559 N.Y.S.2d 132, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7419

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

DecidedJune 21, 1990

StatusPublished

This text of 162 A.D.2d 290 (People v. Inge) 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. Inge, 162 A.D.2d 290, 559 N.Y.S.2d 132, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7419 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Rena Uviller, J.), rendered June 2, 1988, by which defendant was convicted, after a jury trial, of two counts of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree and sentenced to concurrent terms of 4 to 12 years in prison, unanimously affirmed.

The evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the People (People v Malizia, 62 NY2d 755 [1984]), was sufficient to support the jury’s verdict, which was not inherently inconsistent and not repugnant. (See generally, People v Tucker, 55 NY2d 1 [1981].) Acquittal on the murder charge did not, on these facts, require acquittal on the weapons possession charge. The court’s denial of the motion for separate trials was a sound exercise of discretion. Defendant’s burden to demonstrate that the court’s decision was an abuse of discre[291]*291tion was a substantial one which defendant did not meet. (People v Mahboubian, 74 NY2d 174, 183 [1989].)

Defendant’s other arguments have been reviewed and found to be without merit. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Ross, Rosenberger, Asch and Rubin, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Rena Uviller, J.), rendered June 2, 1988, by which defendant was convicted, after a jury trial, of two counts of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree and sentenced to concurrent terms of 4 to 12 years in prison, unanimously affirmed.

The evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the People (People v Malizia, 62 NY2d 755 [1984]), was sufficient to support the jury’s verdict, which was not inherently inconsistent and not repugnant. (See generally, People v Tucker, 55 NY2d 1 [1981].) Acquittal on the murder charge did not, on these facts, require acquittal on the weapons possession charge. The court’s denial of the motion for separate trials was a sound exercise of discretion. Defendant’s burden to demonstrate that the court’s decision was an abuse of discre[291]*291tion was a substantial one which defendant did not meet. (People v Mahboubian, 74 NY2d 174, 183 [1989].)

Defendant’s other arguments have been reviewed and found to be without merit. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Ross, Rosenberger, Asch and Rubin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

162 A.D.2d 290, 559 N.Y.S.2d 132, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7419, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-inge-nyappdiv-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack