People v. Polin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Polin

152 A.D.2d 940, 543 N.Y.S.2d 829, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9807

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

DecidedJuly 12, 1989

StatusPublished

This text of 152 A.D.2d 940 (People v. Polin) 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. Polin, 152 A.D.2d 940, 543 N.Y.S.2d 829, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9807 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant contends that the trial court erred in failing to charge that two of the People’s witnesses were accomplices and that their testimony must be corroborated. Because defendant neither requested such a charge, nor objected to the charge as given, this issue has not been preserved for our review (see, CPL 470.05; People v Corrigan, 139 AD2d 918, 919, Iv denied 72 NY2d 917). Additionally, we find no merit to defendant’s contention that these witnesses were accomplices because no evidence was introduced that they participated in the preparation or perpetration of the crime, or that they counseled, induced or encouraged the crime (see, People v Lyon, 134 AD2d 909, Iv denied 71 NY2d 970; People v Torello, 94 AD2d 857). The fact that these witnesses may have aided defendant in concealing or disposing of evidence of the crime does not make them accomplices (see, People v Cobos, 57 NY2d 798, 801; People v Corrigan, supra; People v Vataj, 121 AD2d 756, 757, revd on other grounds 69 NY2d 985).

We have reviewed defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. (Appeal from judgment of Niagara County Court, Hannigan, J. — robbery, first degree.) Present — Boomer, J. P., Pine, Balio, Lawton and Davis, JJ.

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

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant contends that the trial court erred in failing to charge that two of the People’s witnesses were accomplices and that their testimony must be corroborated. Because defendant neither requested such a charge, nor objected to the charge as given, this issue has not been preserved for our review (see, CPL 470.05; People v Corrigan, 139 AD2d 918, 919, Iv denied 72 NY2d 917). Additionally, we find no merit to defendant’s contention that these witnesses were accomplices because no evidence was introduced that they participated in the preparation or perpetration of the crime, or that they counseled, induced or encouraged the crime (see, People v Lyon, 134 AD2d 909, Iv denied 71 NY2d 970; People v Torello, 94 AD2d 857). The fact that these witnesses may have aided defendant in concealing or disposing of evidence of the crime does not make them accomplices (see, People v Cobos, 57 NY2d 798, 801; People v Corrigan, supra; People v Vataj, 121 AD2d 756, 757, revd on other grounds 69 NY2d 985).

We have reviewed defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. (Appeal from judgment of Niagara County Court, Hannigan, J. — robbery, first degree.) Present — Boomer, J. P., Pine, Balio, Lawton and Davis, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

152 A.D.2d 940, 543 N.Y.S.2d 829, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9807, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-polin-nyappdiv-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack