People v. Ragbirsingh

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Ragbirsingh

10 A.D.3d 425, 780 N.Y.S.2d 783, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10309

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

DecidedAugust 16, 2004

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 10 A.D.3d 425 (People v. Ragbirsingh) 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. Ragbirsingh, 10 A.D.3d 425, 780 N.Y.S.2d 783, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10309 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

[426]*426Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Eng, J.), rendered September 23, 2002, convicting him of burglary in the second degree and criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The People offered evidence at trial that property recently stolen in a burglary was found both in the personal possession of the defendant and in the possession of another with whom he had acted in concert to commit the crime. Therefore, the trial court properly instructed the jury that it could infer from the defendant’s recent and exclusive possession of the fruits of the crime that he was guilty of both burglary and criminal possession of stolen property, or simply of criminal possession of stolen property alone (see People v Galbo, 218 NY 283, 290 [1916]; People v Baskerville, 60 NY2d 374 [1983]; People v Harris, 304 AD2d 839 [2003]).

The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]). Ritter, J.P., Goldstein, Mastro and Fisher, JJ., concur.

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

[426]*426Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Eng, J.), rendered September 23, 2002, convicting him of burglary in the second degree and criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The People offered evidence at trial that property recently stolen in a burglary was found both in the personal possession of the defendant and in the possession of another with whom he had acted in concert to commit the crime. Therefore, the trial court properly instructed the jury that it could infer from the defendant’s recent and exclusive possession of the fruits of the crime that he was guilty of both burglary and criminal possession of stolen property, or simply of criminal possession of stolen property alone (see People v Galbo, 218 NY 283, 290 [1916]; People v Baskerville, 60 NY2d 374 [1983]; People v Harris, 304 AD2d 839 [2003]).

The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]). Ritter, J.P., Goldstein, Mastro and Fisher, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

10 A.D.3d 425, 780 N.Y.S.2d 783, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10309, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-ragbirsingh-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack