People v. Jobe

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Jobe

304 A.D.2d 773, 757 N.Y.S.2d 779

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

DecidedApril 21, 2003

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 304 A.D.2d 773 (People v. Jobe) 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. Jobe, 304 A.D.2d 773, 757 N.Y.S.2d 779 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Gary, J.), rendered February 8, 2001, convicting him of robbery in the first degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The trial court providently exercised its discretion in permitting the complainant to testify that just before the robbery the defendant told him that he was a drug dealer. This evidence was necessary to complete the narrative of events leading up to the robbery, and to enable the jury to understand the sequence of events, and was inextricably intertwined with the crime charged (see People v Carter, 286 AD2d 773 [2001]; People v Capace, 273 AD2d 320 [2000]).

The defendant’s remaining contention is not preserved for appellate review and, in any event, does not warrant reversal. Florio, J.P., H. Miller, Adams and Mastro, 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, Kings County (Gary, J.), rendered February 8, 2001, convicting him of robbery in the first degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The trial court providently exercised its discretion in permitting the complainant to testify that just before the robbery the defendant told him that he was a drug dealer. This evidence was necessary to complete the narrative of events leading up to the robbery, and to enable the jury to understand the sequence of events, and was inextricably intertwined with the crime charged (see People v Carter, 286 AD2d 773 [2001]; People v Capace, 273 AD2d 320 [2000]).

The defendant’s remaining contention is not preserved for appellate review and, in any event, does not warrant reversal. Florio, J.P., H. Miller, Adams and Mastro, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

304 A.D.2d 773, 757 N.Y.S.2d 779, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-jobe-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack