People v. McMillan

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. McMillan

90 A.D.3d 499, 934 N.Y.2d 153

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

DecidedDecember 13, 2011

StatusPublished

This text of 90 A.D.3d 499 (People v. McMillan) 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. McMillan, 90 A.D.3d 499, 934 N.Y.2d 153 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

Defendant’s legal sufficiency argument is unpreserved and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we find that the verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence. We also find that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 348-349 [2007]). Defendant challenges the evidence establishing that a stolen item was a credit card as defined by law. However, under the circumstances of the case the jury was entitled to rely on the victim’s unchallenged testimony that the item was her credit card. “A sufficiently specific motion might [have] provid[ed] the opportunity for cure” (People v Gray, 86 NY2d 10, 20 [1995]) by alerting the People to elicit additional proof of the nature of the card.

We have considered and rejected defendant’s pro se claims. Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Andrias, Renwick, Freedman and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.

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

Defendant’s legal sufficiency argument is unpreserved and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we find that the verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence. We also find that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 348-349 [2007]). Defendant challenges the evidence establishing that a stolen item was a credit card as defined by law. However, under the circumstances of the case the jury was entitled to rely on the victim’s unchallenged testimony that the item was her credit card. “A sufficiently specific motion might [have] provid[ed] the opportunity for cure” (People v Gray, 86 NY2d 10, 20 [1995]) by alerting the People to elicit additional proof of the nature of the card.

We have considered and rejected defendant’s pro se claims. Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Andrias, Renwick, Freedman and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

90 A.D.3d 499, 934 N.Y.2d 153, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-mcmillan-nyappdiv-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack