People v. Pacyon

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Pacyon

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

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

DecidedJuly 12, 1989

StatusPublished

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

Pincite

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]*934considered 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

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]*934considered 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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

152 A.D.2d 933, 544 N.Y.S.2d 742, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9795, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-pacyon-nyappdiv-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack