People v. Nesbitt

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Nesbitt

256 A.D.2d 360, 681 N.Y.S.2d 766, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13138

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

DecidedDecember 7, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 256 A.D.2d 360 (People v. Nesbitt) 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. Nesbitt, 256 A.D.2d 360, 681 N.Y.S.2d 766, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13138 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kangs County (DeLury, J.), rendered November 27, 1996, convicting her of robbery in the first degree (four counts) and endangering the welfare of a child, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that she was prejudiced by the court’s refusal to sever the four robbery counts of the indictment because the crimes were similar to each other is unpreserved for appellate review. In any event, the overwhelming evidence of each crime was “ ‘separately presented, uncomplicated, and easily segregable in the jury’s mind’ ” (People v Nelson, 133 AD2d 470, 471), as it arose from four distinct factual scenarios, each involving eyewitness testimony of separate complainants who identified the defendant as the perpetrator (see, People v Martin, 141 AD2d 854). Pizzuto, J. P., Joy, Gold-stein and Luciano, JJ., concur.

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

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kangs County (DeLury, J.), rendered November 27, 1996, convicting her of robbery in the first degree (four counts) and endangering the welfare of a child, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that she was prejudiced by the court’s refusal to sever the four robbery counts of the indictment because the crimes were similar to each other is unpreserved for appellate review. In any event, the overwhelming evidence of each crime was “ ‘separately presented, uncomplicated, and easily segregable in the jury’s mind’ ” (People v Nelson, 133 AD2d 470, 471), as it arose from four distinct factual scenarios, each involving eyewitness testimony of separate complainants who identified the defendant as the perpetrator (see, People v Martin, 141 AD2d 854). Pizzuto, J. P., Joy, Gold-stein and Luciano, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

256 A.D.2d 360, 681 N.Y.S.2d 766, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13138, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-nesbitt-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack