People v. Lacewell

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Lacewell

44 A.D.3d 876, 842 N.Y.S.2d 920

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

DecidedOctober 16, 2007

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 44 A.D.3d 876 (People v. Lacewell) 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. Lacewell, 44 A.D.3d 876, 842 N.Y.S.2d 920 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Rooney, J.), rendered April 13, 2005, convicting him of [877]*877criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fourth degree, assault in the second degree, assault in the third degree, and resisting arrest, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant contends that the court erred in charging the jury that it might infer a “consciousness of guilt” from a threat that he made at a police station, soon after his arrest. However, any error in giving the charge was harmless, as there was overwhelming evidence of the defendant’s guilt, and no significant probability that the error contributed to his convictions (see People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230, 241-242 [1975]; cf. People v Heman, 198 AD2d 434, 435 [1993]).

The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80, 85-86 [1982]). Rivera, J.P., Covello, Angiolillo and Dickerson, 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, Richmond County (Rooney, J.), rendered April 13, 2005, convicting him of [877]*877criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fourth degree, assault in the second degree, assault in the third degree, and resisting arrest, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant contends that the court erred in charging the jury that it might infer a “consciousness of guilt” from a threat that he made at a police station, soon after his arrest. However, any error in giving the charge was harmless, as there was overwhelming evidence of the defendant’s guilt, and no significant probability that the error contributed to his convictions (see People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230, 241-242 [1975]; cf. People v Heman, 198 AD2d 434, 435 [1993]).

The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80, 85-86 [1982]). Rivera, J.P., Covello, Angiolillo and Dickerson, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

44 A.D.3d 876, 842 N.Y.S.2d 920, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-lacewell-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack