People v. Murray

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Murray

302 A.D.2d 296, 754 N.Y.S.2d 543, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1728

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

DecidedFebruary 25, 2003

StatusPublished

This text of 302 A.D.2d 296 (People v. Murray) 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. Murray, 302 A.D.2d 296, 754 N.Y.S.2d 543, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1728 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Arlene Silverman, J.), rendered October 4, 2000, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of attempted burglary in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 2 to 4 years, unanimously affirmed.

The trial court properly admitted, on the issue of intent, testimony indicating that defendant may have previously committed similar acts (see People v Alvino, 71 NY2d 233, 245; People v McNair, 167 AD2d 205, lv denied 77 NY2d 909). Contrary to defendant’s assertion, defendant’s intent was a contested issue. Furthermore, the court’s thorough limiting instructions, which the jury is presumed to have followed (see People v Davis, 58 NY2d 1102, 1104), were sufficient to prevent any prejudice. Concur — Tom, J.P., Andrias, Sullivan, Friedman and Marlow, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Arlene Silverman, J.), rendered October 4, 2000, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of attempted burglary in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 2 to 4 years, unanimously affirmed.

The trial court properly admitted, on the issue of intent, testimony indicating that defendant may have previously committed similar acts (see People v Alvino, 71 NY2d 233, 245; People v McNair, 167 AD2d 205, lv denied 77 NY2d 909). Contrary to defendant’s assertion, defendant’s intent was a contested issue. Furthermore, the court’s thorough limiting instructions, which the jury is presumed to have followed (see People v Davis, 58 NY2d 1102, 1104), were sufficient to prevent any prejudice. Concur — Tom, J.P., Andrias, Sullivan, Friedman and Marlow, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

302 A.D.2d 296, 754 N.Y.S.2d 543, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1728, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-murray-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack