People v. Luper

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Luper

201 A.D.2d 867, 607 N.Y.S.2d 788, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2020

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

DecidedFebruary 4, 1994

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 201 A.D.2d 867 (People v. Luper) 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. Luper, 201 A.D.2d 867, 607 N.Y.S.2d 788, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2020 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant contends that the trial court erred in admitting statements that he made during three postcrime telephone calls to the victim. Those statements consisted of a threat to burn down the house of the victim’s cousins if they did not stop saying that defendant had shot the victim, a directive that the victim not tell anyone that defendant had shot her, and a suggestion that the victim "mix up” her story. We conclude that the trial court properly admitted those statements into evidence as indicative of defendant’s consciousness of guilt (see, People v Bennett, 79 NY2d 464, 469-470; People v Shilitano, 218 NY 161, 179).

We have reviewed defendant’s remaining contention and find it to be without merit. (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Erie County, Easier, J. — Assault, 2nd Degree.) Present — Denman, P. J., Green, Balio, Lawton and Boehm, JJ.

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

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant contends that the trial court erred in admitting statements that he made during three postcrime telephone calls to the victim. Those statements consisted of a threat to burn down the house of the victim’s cousins if they did not stop saying that defendant had shot the victim, a directive that the victim not tell anyone that defendant had shot her, and a suggestion that the victim "mix up” her story. We conclude that the trial court properly admitted those statements into evidence as indicative of defendant’s consciousness of guilt (see, People v Bennett, 79 NY2d 464, 469-470; People v Shilitano, 218 NY 161, 179).

We have reviewed defendant’s remaining contention and find it to be without merit. (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Erie County, Easier, J. — Assault, 2nd Degree.) Present — Denman, P. J., Green, Balio, Lawton and Boehm, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

201 A.D.2d 867, 607 N.Y.S.2d 788, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2020, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-luper-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack