People v. Pacyon

152 A.D.2d 933, 544 N.Y.S.2d 742, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9795

Opinion

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant’s motion for severance because the crimes alleged in the indictment were properly joined (see, CPL 200.20 [2] [c]; People v Jenkins, 50 NY2d 981) and defendant did not make a convincing showing that he had a genuine need to refrain from testifying on some of the charges or that the risk of prejudice from a joint trial was substantial (see, CPL 200.20 [3] [a], [b]; People v Lane, 56 NY2d 1; People v Mercer, 151 AD2d 1004; People v Casiano, 138 AD2d 892, Iv denied 72 NY2d 857; People v Hoke, 96 AD2d 677). We have [934] considered defendant’s remaining claims and find that they are either unpreserved or lack merit. (Appeal from judgment of Erie County Court, McCarthy, J. — rape, first degree, and another charge.) Present — Doerr, J. P., Denman, Boomer, Green and Pine, JJ.

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

People v. Pacyon, 152 A.D.2d 933, 544 N.Y.S.2d 742, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9795 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1989).

152 A.D.2d 933 (People v. Pacyon) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

People v. Jenkins
409 N.E.2d 944 (New York Court of Appeals, 1980)
People v. Lane
436 N.E.2d 456 (New York Court of Appeals, 1982)
People v. Hoke
96 A.D.2d 677 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1983)
People v. Casiano
138 A.D.2d 892 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1988)
People v. Mercer
151 A.D.2d 1004 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1989)