People v. Magnum

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Magnum

88 A.D.3d 467, 930 N.Y.2d 445

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

DecidedOctober 6, 2011

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 88 A.D.3d 467 (People v. Magnum) 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. Magnum, 88 A.D.3d 467, 930 N.Y.2d 445 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

The court properly declined to submit robbery in the third degree as a lesser included offense, since there was no reasonable view of the evidence, viewed most favorably to defendant, that he committed the lesser offense but not the greater. The victim was certain that defendant displayed what appeared to be a pistol, and there was no identifiable record basis upon which the jury might have reasonably differentiated between segments of the victim’s testimony (see People v Negron, 91 NY2d 788, 792-793 [1998]; see also People v James, 11 NY3d 886 [2008]). Defendant’s alternative theory as to how the victim might have been robbed is entirely speculative.

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. Concur— Tom, J.E, Saxe, DeGrasse, Freedman and Román, JJ.

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

The court properly declined to submit robbery in the third degree as a lesser included offense, since there was no reasonable view of the evidence, viewed most favorably to defendant, that he committed the lesser offense but not the greater. The victim was certain that defendant displayed what appeared to be a pistol, and there was no identifiable record basis upon which the jury might have reasonably differentiated between segments of the victim’s testimony (see People v Negron, 91 NY2d 788, 792-793 [1998]; see also People v James, 11 NY3d 886 [2008]). Defendant’s alternative theory as to how the victim might have been robbed is entirely speculative.

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. Concur— Tom, J.E, Saxe, DeGrasse, Freedman and Román, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

88 A.D.3d 467, 930 N.Y.2d 445, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-magnum-nyappdiv-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack