People v. Lopez

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Lopez

115 A.D.3d 625, 982 N.Y.S.2d 753

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

DecidedMarch 27, 2014

StatusPublished

This text of 115 A.D.3d 625 (People v. Lopez) 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. Lopez, 115 A.D.3d 625, 982 N.Y.S.2d 753 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Laura A. Ward, J.), rendered May 8, 2008, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of robbery in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of three to six years, unanimously affirmed.

[626]*626The court properly declined to submit to the jury the issue of whether a prosecution witness was an accomplice, whose testimony would thus require corroboration (see CPL 60.22). The testimony of the victim as well as the surveillance video provided no reasonable basis to find that the witness, who denied any involvement, acted as an accomplice in the robbery (see People v Sweet, 78 NY2d 263, 266 [1991]). Defendant’s theory that the witness acted as a lookout or played some other role in the robbery is both speculative and contradicted by the evidence (see e.g. People v Martinez, 59 AD3d 361 [1st Dept 2009], lv denied 12 NY3d 917 [2009]).

In any event, any error in failing to deliver an accomplice corroboration charge was harmless (see id.). There was ample evidence to meet the standard for corroboration of accomplice testimony (see People v Breland, 83 NY2d 286, 293 [1994]), and there is no reasonable possibility that an accomplice-in-fact charge would have affected the verdict.

Concur — Moskowitz, J.P, Richter, Manzanet-Daniels, Clark and Kapnick, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Laura A. Ward, J.), rendered May 8, 2008, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of robbery in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of three to six years, unanimously affirmed.

[626]*626The court properly declined to submit to the jury the issue of whether a prosecution witness was an accomplice, whose testimony would thus require corroboration (see CPL 60.22). The testimony of the victim as well as the surveillance video provided no reasonable basis to find that the witness, who denied any involvement, acted as an accomplice in the robbery (see People v Sweet, 78 NY2d 263, 266 [1991]). Defendant’s theory that the witness acted as a lookout or played some other role in the robbery is both speculative and contradicted by the evidence (see e.g. People v Martinez, 59 AD3d 361 [1st Dept 2009], lv denied 12 NY3d 917 [2009]).

In any event, any error in failing to deliver an accomplice corroboration charge was harmless (see id.). There was ample evidence to meet the standard for corroboration of accomplice testimony (see People v Breland, 83 NY2d 286, 293 [1994]), and there is no reasonable possibility that an accomplice-in-fact charge would have affected the verdict.

Concur — Moskowitz, J.P, Richter, Manzanet-Daniels, Clark and Kapnick, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

115 A.D.3d 625, 982 N.Y.S.2d 753, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-lopez-nyappdiv-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack