People v. Roache

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Roache

308 A.D.2d 388, 764 N.Y.S.2d 622, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9699

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

DecidedSeptember 23, 2003

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 308 A.D.2d 388 (People v. Roache) 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. Roache, 308 A.D.2d 388, 764 N.Y.S.2d 622, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9699 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Phylis Skloot Bamberger, J.), rendered June 28, 2001, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of murder in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, and sentencing him to concurrent terms of 25 years to life and 10 years, respectively, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant clearly opened the door to evidence concerning an incident in which defendant and the deceased were arrested together (see People v Melendez, 55 NY2d 445 [1982]). In any event, this evidence was closely linked to the murder, particularly with regard to motive, and was not collateral.

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence.

We have considered and rejected defendant’s remaining claims, including those contained in his pro se supplemental brief. Concur — Buckley, P.J., Nardelli, Tom, Mazzarelli and Gonzalez, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Phylis Skloot Bamberger, J.), rendered June 28, 2001, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of murder in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, and sentencing him to concurrent terms of 25 years to life and 10 years, respectively, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant clearly opened the door to evidence concerning an incident in which defendant and the deceased were arrested together (see People v Melendez, 55 NY2d 445 [1982]). In any event, this evidence was closely linked to the murder, particularly with regard to motive, and was not collateral.

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence.

We have considered and rejected defendant’s remaining claims, including those contained in his pro se supplemental brief. Concur — Buckley, P.J., Nardelli, Tom, Mazzarelli and Gonzalez, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

308 A.D.2d 388, 764 N.Y.S.2d 622, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9699, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-roache-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack