People v. Laureano

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Laureano

228 A.D.2d 392, 645 N.Y.2d 293, 645 N.Y.S.2d 293, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7463

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided June 27, 1996·Published

Opinion

[393]*393The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence. Although the victims could not identify defendant, they were certain that there were two active participants in the crime and no other persons present. Defendant admitted being present for the robbery, while accompanying the codefendant, and fleeing afterwards, and admitted that no one else was present. The jury was free to reject that portion of defendant’s statement in which he denied participation. We perceive no abuse of sentencing discretion. Concur—Milonas, J. P., Ellerin, Kupferman, Tom and Mazzarelli, JJ.

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

[393]*393The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence. Although the victims could not identify defendant, they were certain that there were two active participants in the crime and no other persons present. Defendant admitted being present for the robbery, while accompanying the codefendant, and fleeing afterwards, and admitted that no one else was present. The jury was free to reject that portion of defendant’s statement in which he denied participation. We perceive no abuse of sentencing discretion. Concur—Milonas, J. P., Ellerin, Kupferman, Tom and Mazzarelli, JJ.

People v. Laureano, 228 A.D.2d 392, 645 N.Y.2d 293, 645 N.Y.S.2d 293, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7463 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

228 A.D.2d 392 (People v. Laureano) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.