People v. Robles

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Robles

169 A.D.2d 595, 564 N.Y.S.2d 748, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 721

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

DecidedJanuary 29, 1991

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 169 A.D.2d 595 (People v. Robles) 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. Robles, 169 A.D.2d 595, 564 N.Y.S.2d 748, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 721 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (William T. Martin, J.), rendered April 20, 1988, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of grand larceny in the fourth degree and sentencing him, as a predicate felon, to a term of from 2 to 4 years’ imprisonment, unanimously affirmed.

We reject defendant’s claim that the identification testimony was insufficient to establish his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The circumstances surrounding both the complainant’s and the police officers’ identification of defendant were fully explored on cross-examination and during summation. The jury credited the identification testimony, and we discern no reason to disturb its conclusion on appeal. (People v Mosley, 112 AD2d 812, affd 67 NY2d 985.) Furthermore, there was nothing impermissibly suggestive in connection with complainant’s showup identification, which occurred 7 to 10 minutes after the commission of the crime, a short distance away from the crime scene. (People v Love, 57 NY2d 1023.)

Defendant failed to preserve for review his arguments with respect to the court’s charge. In any event, we find the charge [596]*596aptly stated the legal principles applicable to the case. Concur —Murphy, P. J., Carro, Kupferman, Asch and Kassal, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (William T. Martin, J.), rendered April 20, 1988, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of grand larceny in the fourth degree and sentencing him, as a predicate felon, to a term of from 2 to 4 years’ imprisonment, unanimously affirmed.

We reject defendant’s claim that the identification testimony was insufficient to establish his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The circumstances surrounding both the complainant’s and the police officers’ identification of defendant were fully explored on cross-examination and during summation. The jury credited the identification testimony, and we discern no reason to disturb its conclusion on appeal. (People v Mosley, 112 AD2d 812, affd 67 NY2d 985.) Furthermore, there was nothing impermissibly suggestive in connection with complainant’s showup identification, which occurred 7 to 10 minutes after the commission of the crime, a short distance away from the crime scene. (People v Love, 57 NY2d 1023.)

Defendant failed to preserve for review his arguments with respect to the court’s charge. In any event, we find the charge [596]*596aptly stated the legal principles applicable to the case. Concur —Murphy, P. J., Carro, Kupferman, Asch and Kassal, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

169 A.D.2d 595, 564 N.Y.S.2d 748, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 721, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-robles-nyappdiv-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack