People v. Nieves

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Nieves

63 A.D.3d 541, 880 N.Y.S.2d 480

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

DecidedJune 18, 2009

StatusPublished

This text of 63 A.D.3d 541 (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, 63 A.D.3d 541, 880 N.Y.S.2d 480 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgement Supreme Court, New York County (Robert M. Stolz, J.), rendered June 25, 2007, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 3Vs to 7 years, unanimously affirmed.

The prosecutor was not required to provide the grand jury with a circumstantial evidence charge. Even where the evidence is wholly circumstantial, a failure to charge the grand jury on circumstantial evidence does not impair the integrity of the proceeding (see People v Wooten, 283 AD2d 931, 932 [2001], lv denied 96 NY2d 943 [2001]).

The surcharges and fees were properly imposed (see People v Guerrero, 12 NY3d 45 [2009]). Concur—Andrias, J.P, Catterson, Renwick, DeGrasse and Freedman, JJ.

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

Judgement Supreme Court, New York County (Robert M. Stolz, J.), rendered June 25, 2007, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 3Vs to 7 years, unanimously affirmed.

The prosecutor was not required to provide the grand jury with a circumstantial evidence charge. Even where the evidence is wholly circumstantial, a failure to charge the grand jury on circumstantial evidence does not impair the integrity of the proceeding (see People v Wooten, 283 AD2d 931, 932 [2001], lv denied 96 NY2d 943 [2001]).

The surcharges and fees were properly imposed (see People v Guerrero, 12 NY3d 45 [2009]). Concur—Andrias, J.P, Catterson, Renwick, DeGrasse and Freedman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

63 A.D.3d 541, 880 N.Y.S.2d 480, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-nieves-nyappdiv-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack