People v. Pilgrim

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Pilgrim

67 A.D.2d 1011, 413 N.Y.S.2d 751, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10815

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

DecidedFebruary 26, 1979

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 67 A.D.2d 1011 (People v. Pilgrim) 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. Pilgrim, 67 A.D.2d 1011, 413 N.Y.S.2d 751, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10815 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1979).

Pincite

Opinion

— Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered June 14, 1978, convicting him of murder in the second degree, manslaughter in the first degree and criminal possession of a dangerous weapon in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. Judgment affirmed. Evidence regarding defendant’s conduct at the lineup was admissible to show consciousness of guilt. There is no merit to defendant’s contention that the admission of evidence at the trial regarding his apparent exchange of name and clothing with Marion Williams for purposes of the lineup violated his privilege against self incrimination, since defendant voluntarily engaged in such conduct. Hopkins, J. P., Titone, Suozzi and Cohalan, JJ., concur.

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

— Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered June 14, 1978, convicting him of murder in the second degree, manslaughter in the first degree and criminal possession of a dangerous weapon in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. Judgment affirmed. Evidence regarding defendant’s conduct at the lineup was admissible to show consciousness of guilt. There is no merit to defendant’s contention that the admission of evidence at the trial regarding his apparent exchange of name and clothing with Marion Williams for purposes of the lineup violated his privilege against self incrimination, since defendant voluntarily engaged in such conduct. Hopkins, J. P., Titone, Suozzi and Cohalan, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

67 A.D.2d 1011, 413 N.Y.S.2d 751, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10815, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-pilgrim-nyappdiv-1979.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack