People v. Le Grande

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Le Grande

162 A.D.2d 474, 556 N.Y.S.2d 168, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7019

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

DecidedJune 4, 1990

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 162 A.D.2d 474 (People v. Le Grande) 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. Le Grande, 162 A.D.2d 474, 556 N.Y.S.2d 168, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7019 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Fertig, J.), rendered September 15, 1987, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The Court of Appeals has noted that when a trial court exercises its discretion in denying a motion for a separate trial, the "defendants’ burden [is] to demonstrate [that an] abuse of that discretion is a substantial one” (People v Mahboubian, 74 NY2d 174, 183). It is clear from the record that the codefendant’s counsel did not indicate that his client would testify as the defendant’s attorney had alleged. Con[475]*475trary to the defendant’s claim, we find that the trial court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the defendant’s motion for a separate trial where he failed to show that the codefendant would testify if the trials were severed or that any testimony that the codefendant would give would tend to exculpate him (see, People v Bornholdt, 33 NY2d 75, cert denied sub nom. Victory v New York, 416 US 905; CPL 200.40 [1]). Bracken, J. P., Eiber, Sullivan and Rosenblatt, 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 (Fertig, J.), rendered September 15, 1987, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The Court of Appeals has noted that when a trial court exercises its discretion in denying a motion for a separate trial, the "defendants’ burden [is] to demonstrate [that an] abuse of that discretion is a substantial one” (People v Mahboubian, 74 NY2d 174, 183). It is clear from the record that the codefendant’s counsel did not indicate that his client would testify as the defendant’s attorney had alleged. Con[475]*475trary to the defendant’s claim, we find that the trial court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the defendant’s motion for a separate trial where he failed to show that the codefendant would testify if the trials were severed or that any testimony that the codefendant would give would tend to exculpate him (see, People v Bornholdt, 33 NY2d 75, cert denied sub nom. Victory v New York, 416 US 905; CPL 200.40 [1]). Bracken, J. P., Eiber, Sullivan and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

162 A.D.2d 474, 556 N.Y.S.2d 168, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7019, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-le-grande-nyappdiv-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack