People v. Murphy

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Murphy

107 A.D.2d 1057, 486 N.Y.S.2d 106, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 42879

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

DecidedJanuary 29, 1985

StatusPublished

This text of 107 A.D.2d 1057 (People v. Murphy) 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. Murphy, 107 A.D.2d 1057, 486 N.Y.S.2d 106, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 42879 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

— Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Upon our review of the evidence in its totality and in the light most favorable to the People (People v Kennedy, 47 NY2d 196, 201-203; People v Benzinger, 36 NY2d 29, 32), we find the evidence, although circumstantial in nature, legally sufficient to sustain defendant’s conviction. Direct evidence clearly established the assault as well as defendant’s motive and opportunity to commit the larceny. The court properly instructed the jury on the law with respect to circumstantial evidence and the jury rejected the speculation that someone else could have stolen the victim’s money. We have reviewed defendant’s other claims of error and find them to be without merit. (Appeal from judgment of Niagara County Court, Hannigan, J. — robbery, second degree.) Present — Hancock, Jr., J. P., Callahan, Doerr, Denman and O’Donnell, JJ.

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

— Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Upon our review of the evidence in its totality and in the light most favorable to the People (People v Kennedy, 47 NY2d 196, 201-203; People v Benzinger, 36 NY2d 29, 32), we find the evidence, although circumstantial in nature, legally sufficient to sustain defendant’s conviction. Direct evidence clearly established the assault as well as defendant’s motive and opportunity to commit the larceny. The court properly instructed the jury on the law with respect to circumstantial evidence and the jury rejected the speculation that someone else could have stolen the victim’s money. We have reviewed defendant’s other claims of error and find them to be without merit. (Appeal from judgment of Niagara County Court, Hannigan, J. — robbery, second degree.) Present — Hancock, Jr., J. P., Callahan, Doerr, Denman and O’Donnell, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

107 A.D.2d 1057, 486 N.Y.S.2d 106, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 42879, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-murphy-nyappdiv-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack