People v. Richards

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Richards

38 A.D.3d 362, 830 N.Y.S.2d 896

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

DecidedMarch 20, 2007

StatusPublished

This text of 38 A.D.3d 362 (People v. Richards) 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. Richards, 38 A.D.3d 362, 830 N.Y.S.2d 896 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (David Stadtmauer, J), rendered February 25, 2005, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of robbery in the first degree and sentencing him to a term of 10 years, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly excluded evidence of alleged third-party culpability, the probative value of which was minimal and was outweighed by its prejudicial effect (see People v Schulz, 4 NY3d 521, 528-529 [2005]; People v Mane, 36 AD3d 1079 [2007]). Inasmuch as defendant did not assert a constitutional right to introduce the excluded evidence, his constitutional argument is unpreserved (see People v Angelo, 88 NY2d 217, 222 [1996]; People v Morris, 21 AD3d 830, 831 [2005]), and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review this claim, we would find no violation of defendant’s right to present a defense (see Crane v Kentucky, 476 US 683, 689-690 [1986]).

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. Concur— Mazzarelli, J.E, Friedman, Buckley, Catterson and Malone, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (David Stadtmauer, J), rendered February 25, 2005, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of robbery in the first degree and sentencing him to a term of 10 years, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly excluded evidence of alleged third-party culpability, the probative value of which was minimal and was outweighed by its prejudicial effect (see People v Schulz, 4 NY3d 521, 528-529 [2005]; People v Mane, 36 AD3d 1079 [2007]). Inasmuch as defendant did not assert a constitutional right to introduce the excluded evidence, his constitutional argument is unpreserved (see People v Angelo, 88 NY2d 217, 222 [1996]; People v Morris, 21 AD3d 830, 831 [2005]), and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review this claim, we would find no violation of defendant’s right to present a defense (see Crane v Kentucky, 476 US 683, 689-690 [1986]).

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. Concur— Mazzarelli, J.E, Friedman, Buckley, Catterson and Malone, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

38 A.D.3d 362, 830 N.Y.S.2d 896, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-richards-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack