People v. Reeves

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Reeves

273 A.D.2d 415, 711 N.Y.S.2d 338, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7023

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

DecidedJune 19, 2000

StatusPublished

This text of 273 A.D.2d 415 (People v. Reeves) 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. Reeves, 273 A.D.2d 415, 711 N.Y.S.2d 338, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7023 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Starkey, J.), rendered May 26, 1998, convicting him of criminal possession of stolen property in the fourth degree and possession of burglar’s tools, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People (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 trial court providently exercised its discretion in allowing the prosecution to cross-examine the defendant, should he choose to testify, with respect to four prior convictions which involved offenses similar in nature to the present offense as well as a conviction for manslaughter in the first degree (see, People v Mattiace, 77 NY2d 269, 275-276; People v Pavao, 59 NY2d 282; People v Rahman, 46 NY2d 882; People v Sandoval, 34 NY2d 371). The defendant’s prior convictions were relevant on the issue of credibility, since they demonstrated the defendant’s willingness to place his interests above those of society (see, People v Sandoval, supra; People v Williams, 249 AD2d 427). Sullivan, J. P., McGinity, H. Miller and Smith, 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 (Starkey, J.), rendered May 26, 1998, convicting him of criminal possession of stolen property in the fourth degree and possession of burglar’s tools, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People (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 trial court providently exercised its discretion in allowing the prosecution to cross-examine the defendant, should he choose to testify, with respect to four prior convictions which involved offenses similar in nature to the present offense as well as a conviction for manslaughter in the first degree (see, People v Mattiace, 77 NY2d 269, 275-276; People v Pavao, 59 NY2d 282; People v Rahman, 46 NY2d 882; People v Sandoval, 34 NY2d 371). The defendant’s prior convictions were relevant on the issue of credibility, since they demonstrated the defendant’s willingness to place his interests above those of society (see, People v Sandoval, supra; People v Williams, 249 AD2d 427). Sullivan, J. P., McGinity, H. Miller and Smith, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

273 A.D.2d 415, 711 N.Y.S.2d 338, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7023, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-reeves-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack