People v. Jansen

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Jansen

174 A.D.2d 968, 572 N.Y.S.2d 127, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8863

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

DecidedJune 7, 1991

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 174 A.D.2d 968 (People v. Jansen) 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. Jansen, 174 A.D.2d 968, 572 N.Y.S.2d 127, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8863 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant was convicted of criminal sale and criminal possession of cocaine. On appeal, he contends that the court abused its discretion in admitting rebuttal testimony and that his conviction is against the weight of the evidence.

The rebuttal testimony was properly admitted. The Court of Appeals has defined proper rebuttal evidence as " 'not merely evidence which contradicts the witnesses on the opposite side and corroborates those of the party who began, but evidence in denial of some affirmative fact which the answering party has endeavored to prove’ ” (People v Harris, 57 NY2d 335, 345, cert denied 460 US 1047, quoting Marshall v Davies, 78 NY 414, 420). Here, contrary to defendant’s contention, the rebuttal testimony could not have been offered as part of the People’s direct case. It was offered merely to disprove an affirmative fact that the defense had attempted to prove. The court allowed the witness to testify that, at specified times, an individual of a certain description, driving a certain vehicle, left and returned to the house where the drug sale was consummated. The court explicitly precluded the witness from identifying that individual as defendant. It was not initially probative of the People’s case against defendant that an individual left and returned to the house shortly prior to the drug sale. That testimony was rendered probative, however, when defendant, in an attempt to establish his claim of alibi and mistaken identity, testified that he had been driving that vehicle elsewhere that night.

Turning to defendant’s remaining contention, we conclude that the jury did not fail "to give the evidence the weight it should be accorded” (People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495). (Appeal from Judgment of Onondaga County Court, Mulroy, J. [969]*969—Criminal Sale Controlled Substance, 3rd Degree.) Present— Dillon, P. J., Denman, Lawton, Lowery and Davis, JJ.

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

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant was convicted of criminal sale and criminal possession of cocaine. On appeal, he contends that the court abused its discretion in admitting rebuttal testimony and that his conviction is against the weight of the evidence.

The rebuttal testimony was properly admitted. The Court of Appeals has defined proper rebuttal evidence as " 'not merely evidence which contradicts the witnesses on the opposite side and corroborates those of the party who began, but evidence in denial of some affirmative fact which the answering party has endeavored to prove’ ” (People v Harris, 57 NY2d 335, 345, cert denied 460 US 1047, quoting Marshall v Davies, 78 NY 414, 420). Here, contrary to defendant’s contention, the rebuttal testimony could not have been offered as part of the People’s direct case. It was offered merely to disprove an affirmative fact that the defense had attempted to prove. The court allowed the witness to testify that, at specified times, an individual of a certain description, driving a certain vehicle, left and returned to the house where the drug sale was consummated. The court explicitly precluded the witness from identifying that individual as defendant. It was not initially probative of the People’s case against defendant that an individual left and returned to the house shortly prior to the drug sale. That testimony was rendered probative, however, when defendant, in an attempt to establish his claim of alibi and mistaken identity, testified that he had been driving that vehicle elsewhere that night.

Turning to defendant’s remaining contention, we conclude that the jury did not fail "to give the evidence the weight it should be accorded” (People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495). (Appeal from Judgment of Onondaga County Court, Mulroy, J. [969]*969—Criminal Sale Controlled Substance, 3rd Degree.) Present— Dillon, P. J., Denman, Lawton, Lowery and Davis, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

174 A.D.2d 968, 572 N.Y.S.2d 127, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8863, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-jansen-nyappdiv-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack