People v. Pringle

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Pringle

157 A.D.2d 865, 550 N.Y.S.2d 435, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 997

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

DecidedJanuary 29, 1990

StatusPublished

This text of 157 A.D.2d 865 (People v. Pringle) 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. Pringle, 157 A.D.2d 865, 550 N.Y.S.2d 435, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 997 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Aiello, J.), rendered July 9, 1987, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant contends that the evidence adduced at trial was legally insufficient to support his conviction of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree because the People failed to establish that he solicited, requested, commanded, importuned or intentionally aided his companion in his possession of the weapon in question (see, Penal Law §20.00). We disagree. The evidence adduced at trial, when viewed in the light most favorable to the People (see, People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620), established that the defendant and his companion, Brian Davis, approached the victims of the aborted robbery on the street, and asked where they could obtain some cocaine. The defendant and Davis followed the victims to a basement apartment where they were met by a third victim who arrived with a package purportedly containing cocaine. At this point, Davis pulled a gun and both he and the defendant indicated that "a stickup” was in progress. The defendant verbally and physically restrained the victims and fled the scene with Davis when the attempted robbery went sour and a shoot-out ensued. There was also testimony that the defendant made certain gestures toward his waistband indicating that he, too, might be armed. Based upon the foregoing, it cannot be said that no rational trier of fact could have found beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant intentionally aided his companion in possessing the gun.

The defendant’s remaining contention is unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05 [2]), and does not warrant reversal in the interest of justice. Mollen, P. J., Brown, Eiber and Rosenblatt, 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 Supreme Court, Kings County (Aiello, J.), rendered July 9, 1987, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant contends that the evidence adduced at trial was legally insufficient to support his conviction of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree because the People failed to establish that he solicited, requested, commanded, importuned or intentionally aided his companion in his possession of the weapon in question (see, Penal Law §20.00). We disagree. The evidence adduced at trial, when viewed in the light most favorable to the People (see, People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620), established that the defendant and his companion, Brian Davis, approached the victims of the aborted robbery on the street, and asked where they could obtain some cocaine. The defendant and Davis followed the victims to a basement apartment where they were met by a third victim who arrived with a package purportedly containing cocaine. At this point, Davis pulled a gun and both he and the defendant indicated that "a stickup” was in progress. The defendant verbally and physically restrained the victims and fled the scene with Davis when the attempted robbery went sour and a shoot-out ensued. There was also testimony that the defendant made certain gestures toward his waistband indicating that he, too, might be armed. Based upon the foregoing, it cannot be said that no rational trier of fact could have found beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant intentionally aided his companion in possessing the gun.

The defendant’s remaining contention is unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05 [2]), and does not warrant reversal in the interest of justice. Mollen, P. J., Brown, Eiber and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

157 A.D.2d 865, 550 N.Y.S.2d 435, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 997, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-pringle-nyappdiv-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack