People v. Peinado

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Peinado

266 A.D.2d 242, 698 N.Y.S.2d 38, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11060

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

DecidedNovember 1, 1999

StatusPublished

This text of 266 A.D.2d 242 (People v. Peinado) 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. Peinado, 266 A.D.2d 242, 698 N.Y.S.2d 38, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11060 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Orange County (Berry, J.), rendered July 28, 1997, convicting him of murder in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress evidence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The trial court did not err in permitting testimony regarding prior uncharged criminal conduct by the defendant since the testimony was relevant to establish both that the defendant had a motive to kill the victim and that the defendant was the perpetrator (see, People v Ventimiglia, 52 NY2d 350; People v Brown, 249 AD2d 556; People v Wilson, 225 AD2d 642). In any event, any potential prejudice was mitigated by the limiting instruction given, at the defendant’s request, when the testimony was admitted (see, People v Brown, supra; People v Wilson, supra).

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see, People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15 [5]).

The defendant’s remaining contention is without merit. S. Miller, J. P., Ritter, Florio and H. Miller, JJ., concur.

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

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Orange County (Berry, J.), rendered July 28, 1997, convicting him of murder in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress evidence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The trial court did not err in permitting testimony regarding prior uncharged criminal conduct by the defendant since the testimony was relevant to establish both that the defendant had a motive to kill the victim and that the defendant was the perpetrator (see, People v Ventimiglia, 52 NY2d 350; People v Brown, 249 AD2d 556; People v Wilson, 225 AD2d 642). In any event, any potential prejudice was mitigated by the limiting instruction given, at the defendant’s request, when the testimony was admitted (see, People v Brown, supra; People v Wilson, supra).

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see, People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15 [5]).

The defendant’s remaining contention is without merit. S. Miller, J. P., Ritter, Florio and H. Miller, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

266 A.D.2d 242, 698 N.Y.S.2d 38, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11060, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-peinado-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack