People v. Maeweather

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Maeweather

159 A.D.2d 1008, 552 N.Y.S.2d 734, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3329

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

DecidedMarch 16, 1990

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 159 A.D.2d 1008 (People v. Maeweather) 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. Maeweather, 159 A.D.2d 1008, 552 N.Y.S.2d 734, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3329 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: We reject defendant’s contention that the evidence was legally insufficient because it failed to establish that the gun in defendant’s possession was operable. The victim testified that defendant removed ammunition from the gun and handed it to the victim and that, later, defendant fired the gun at the victim’s feet. Other witnesses testified that they heard a noise like the firing of a gun. We conclude from all of the evidence that the jury was justified in inferring that the gun was operable.

We have reviewed defendant’s allegations of prosecutorial misconduct and we conclude that none of the alleged acts of misconduct deprived defendant of a fair trial. (Appeal from judgment of Onondaga County Court, Burke, J. — criminal possession of a weapon, third degree.) Present — Callahan, J. P., Denman, Boomer, Balio and Lowery, JJ.

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

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: We reject defendant’s contention that the evidence was legally insufficient because it failed to establish that the gun in defendant’s possession was operable. The victim testified that defendant removed ammunition from the gun and handed it to the victim and that, later, defendant fired the gun at the victim’s feet. Other witnesses testified that they heard a noise like the firing of a gun. We conclude from all of the evidence that the jury was justified in inferring that the gun was operable.

We have reviewed defendant’s allegations of prosecutorial misconduct and we conclude that none of the alleged acts of misconduct deprived defendant of a fair trial. (Appeal from judgment of Onondaga County Court, Burke, J. — criminal possession of a weapon, third degree.) Present — Callahan, J. P., Denman, Boomer, Balio and Lowery, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

159 A.D.2d 1008, 552 N.Y.S.2d 734, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3329, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-maeweather-nyappdiv-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack