People v. Olewine

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Olewine

164 A.D.2d 971, 559 N.Y.S.2d 854, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16833

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

DecidedAugust 10, 1990

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 164 A.D.2d 971 (People v. Olewine) 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. Olewine, 164 A.D.2d 971, 559 N.Y.S.2d 854, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16833 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: The statements of the codefendant, made to others in the presence of the defendant and not denied by her, were properly admitted into evidence (see, People v Baldassara, 151 AD2d 1004, lv denied 74 NY2d 845; People v Lord, 103 AD2d 1032, 1033). By failing to raise the argument that the acquittal on the charge of felony murder was inconsistent with the conviction on the charge of burglary in the second degree before the jury was discharged, defendant has failed to preserve that issue for review (see, People v Alfaro, 66 NY2d 985, 987). That argument is without merit because the jury’s determination that the affirmative defense to felony murder had been established does not negate an essential element of the charge of burglary in the second degree (see, People v Tucker, 55 NY2d 1, 7). Upon our independent review of the record, we find that the evidence is sufficient to support the verdict and that the verdict is not against the weight of the evidence (see, People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490). (Appeal from judgment of Erie County Court, McCarthy, J.—burglary, second degree.) Present—Callahan, J. P., Doerr, Denman, Lawton and Davis, JJ.

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

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: The statements of the codefendant, made to others in the presence of the defendant and not denied by her, were properly admitted into evidence (see, People v Baldassara, 151 AD2d 1004, lv denied 74 NY2d 845; People v Lord, 103 AD2d 1032, 1033). By failing to raise the argument that the acquittal on the charge of felony murder was inconsistent with the conviction on the charge of burglary in the second degree before the jury was discharged, defendant has failed to preserve that issue for review (see, People v Alfaro, 66 NY2d 985, 987). That argument is without merit because the jury’s determination that the affirmative defense to felony murder had been established does not negate an essential element of the charge of burglary in the second degree (see, People v Tucker, 55 NY2d 1, 7). Upon our independent review of the record, we find that the evidence is sufficient to support the verdict and that the verdict is not against the weight of the evidence (see, People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490). (Appeal from judgment of Erie County Court, McCarthy, J.—burglary, second degree.) Present—Callahan, J. P., Doerr, Denman, Lawton and Davis, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

164 A.D.2d 971, 559 N.Y.S.2d 854, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16833, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-olewine-nyappdiv-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack