People v. Lozada

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Lozada

208 A.D.2d 351, 616 N.Y.S.2d 964, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9260

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

DecidedOctober 4, 1994

StatusPublished

This text of 208 A.D.2d 351 (People v. Lozada) 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. Lozada, 208 A.D.2d 351, 616 N.Y.S.2d 964, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9260 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Ira Globerman, J.) rendered July 7, 1992, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of grand larceny in the fourth degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree, and sentencing him to consecutive prison terms of 2 to 4 years and 1 year, respectively, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant was given fair notice of the charges and the People’s theory in the indictment and bill of particulars. Contrary to defendant’s contention, it was his testimony which brought out an alternative theory to support every requisite element of the crime charged. Nevertheless, neither the prosecutor’s summation nor the court’s jury instructions deviated from the theory advanced in the indictment and bill of particulars. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Ellerin, Ross, Nardelli and Williams, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Ira Globerman, J.) rendered July 7, 1992, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of grand larceny in the fourth degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree, and sentencing him to consecutive prison terms of 2 to 4 years and 1 year, respectively, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant was given fair notice of the charges and the People’s theory in the indictment and bill of particulars. Contrary to defendant’s contention, it was his testimony which brought out an alternative theory to support every requisite element of the crime charged. Nevertheless, neither the prosecutor’s summation nor the court’s jury instructions deviated from the theory advanced in the indictment and bill of particulars. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Ellerin, Ross, Nardelli and Williams, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

208 A.D.2d 351, 616 N.Y.S.2d 964, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9260, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-lozada-nyappdiv-1994.