People v. Peek

New York Court of Appeals

People v. Peek

358 N.E.2d 266, 40 N.Y.2d 920, 389 N.Y.S.2d 573, 1976 N.Y. LEXIS 3089

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedNovember 16, 1976

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 358 N.E.2d 266 (People v. Peek) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Peek, 358 N.E.2d 266, 40 N.Y.2d 920, 389 N.Y.S.2d 573, 1976 N.Y. LEXIS 3089 (N.Y. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

Memorandum. Order of the Appellate Division affirmed. The closeness in time (two or three days before the instant offense), the substantial identity of place, and the similarity of the shooting from the same automobile made admissible the prior uncharged offense. Such coincidence of time, place, and pattern of conduct established a sufficient probability to negative the suggested inference that defendant was a victim rather than an aggressor. On this view, the reasoning of the Appellate Division is acceptable. The other issues raised by defendant do not require discussion.

Chief Judge Breitel and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Cooke concur in memorandum.

Order affirmed.

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

Memorandum. Order of the Appellate Division affirmed. The closeness in time (two or three days before the instant offense), the substantial identity of place, and the similarity of the shooting from the same automobile made admissible the prior uncharged offense. Such coincidence of time, place, and pattern of conduct established a sufficient probability to negative the suggested inference that defendant was a victim rather than an aggressor. On this view, the reasoning of the Appellate Division is acceptable. The other issues raised by defendant do not require discussion.

Chief Judge Breitel and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Cooke concur in memorandum.

Order affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

358 N.E.2d 266, 40 N.Y.2d 920, 389 N.Y.S.2d 573, 1976 N.Y. LEXIS 3089, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-peek-ny-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack