People v. Mayo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Mayo

201 A.D.2d 412, 607 N.Y.S.2d 654, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1502

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

DecidedFebruary 22, 1994

StatusPublished

This text of 201 A.D.2d 412 (People v. Mayo) 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. Mayo, 201 A.D.2d 412, 607 N.Y.S.2d 654, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1502 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (James Leif, J.), rendered October 2, 1991, convicting defendant, after jury trial, of burglary in the [413]*413third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 3Vi to 7 years, unanimously affirmed.

The trial court appropriately exercised its discretion in denying defendant’s motion for severance on the ground that the codefendant’s exculpatory testimony was necessary to his defense, as counsel for the codefendant specifically represented on the record that the codefendant would invoke his Fifth Amendment right should he be called upon to testify and, indeed, had no intention of exonerating defendant (People v Bornholdt, 33 NY2d 75, 87, cert denied sub nom. Victory v New York, 416 US 905). Concur — Carro, J. P., Ellerin, Wallach, Kupferman and Nardelli, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (James Leif, J.), rendered October 2, 1991, convicting defendant, after jury trial, of burglary in the [413]*413third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 3Vi to 7 years, unanimously affirmed.

The trial court appropriately exercised its discretion in denying defendant’s motion for severance on the ground that the codefendant’s exculpatory testimony was necessary to his defense, as counsel for the codefendant specifically represented on the record that the codefendant would invoke his Fifth Amendment right should he be called upon to testify and, indeed, had no intention of exonerating defendant (People v Bornholdt, 33 NY2d 75, 87, cert denied sub nom. Victory v New York, 416 US 905). Concur — Carro, J. P., Ellerin, Wallach, Kupferman and Nardelli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

201 A.D.2d 412, 607 N.Y.S.2d 654, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1502, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-mayo-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack