People v. Nieves

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Nieves

138 A.D.2d 749, 526 N.Y.S.2d 787, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3268

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

DecidedMarch 28, 1988

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 138 A.D.2d 749 (People v. Nieves) 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. Nieves, 138 A.D.2d 749, 526 N.Y.S.2d 787, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3268 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Demakos, J.), rendered October 16, 1986, convicting him of reckless endangerment in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Viewing the evidence adduced at the trial that the defendant possessed a loaded firearm not in his home or business in the light most favorable to the People (see, People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to support his conviction of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree (Penal Law § 265.02 [4]).

The trial court’s refusal to give the jury a missing witness charge with regard to two uncalled witnesses was not error in the absence of any indication that their testimony would have been material and noncumulative (cf., People v Gonzalez, 68 NY2d 424). Thompson, J. P., Weinstein, Rubin and Harwood, 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, Queens County (Demakos, J.), rendered October 16, 1986, convicting him of reckless endangerment in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Viewing the evidence adduced at the trial that the defendant possessed a loaded firearm not in his home or business in the light most favorable to the People (see, People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to support his conviction of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree (Penal Law § 265.02 [4]).

The trial court’s refusal to give the jury a missing witness charge with regard to two uncalled witnesses was not error in the absence of any indication that their testimony would have been material and noncumulative (cf., People v Gonzalez, 68 NY2d 424). Thompson, J. P., Weinstein, Rubin and Harwood, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

138 A.D.2d 749, 526 N.Y.S.2d 787, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3268, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-nieves-nyappdiv-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack