People v. Lee Mack

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Lee Mack

59 A.D.2d 1052, 400 N.Y.S.2d 503, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14340

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

DecidedNovember 14, 1977

StatusPublished

This text of 59 A.D.2d 1052 (People v. Lee Mack) 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. Lee Mack, 59 A.D.2d 1052, 400 N.Y.S.2d 503, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14340 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment unanimously modified in accordance with memorandum and, as modified, affirmed. Memorandum: As the District Attorney commendably acknowledged, Trial Term erred in denying defendant’s request for a charge that the jury could find defendant guilty of criminal trespass as a lesser included crime of burglary, third degree (People v Henderson, 41 NY2d 233; People v Long, 40 AD2d 984). Defendant’s conviction of burglary, third degree, therefore, must be reversed and a new trial granted on that count. Defendant’s confession of possession of the weapon was sufficiently corroborated (see People v Spillman, 309 NY 295; People v Lo Turco, 256 App Div 1098, affd 280 NY 844); and so the judgment is otherwise affirmed. (Appeal from judgment of Monroe Supreme Court— burglary, third degree.) Present—Simons, J. P., Hancock, Jr., Denman, Goldman and Witmer, JJ.

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

Judgment unanimously modified in accordance with memorandum and, as modified, affirmed. Memorandum: As the District Attorney commendably acknowledged, Trial Term erred in denying defendant’s request for a charge that the jury could find defendant guilty of criminal trespass as a lesser included crime of burglary, third degree (People v Henderson, 41 NY2d 233; People v Long, 40 AD2d 984). Defendant’s conviction of burglary, third degree, therefore, must be reversed and a new trial granted on that count. Defendant’s confession of possession of the weapon was sufficiently corroborated (see People v Spillman, 309 NY 295; People v Lo Turco, 256 App Div 1098, affd 280 NY 844); and so the judgment is otherwise affirmed. (Appeal from judgment of Monroe Supreme Court— burglary, third degree.) Present—Simons, J. P., Hancock, Jr., Denman, Goldman and Witmer, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

59 A.D.2d 1052, 400 N.Y.S.2d 503, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14340, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-lee-mack-nyappdiv-1977.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack