People v. Rodas

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Rodas

76 A.D.2d 936, 428 N.Y.S.2d 996, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12045

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

DecidedJune 30, 1980

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 76 A.D.2d 936 (People v. Rodas) 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. Rodas, 76 A.D.2d 936, 428 N.Y.S.2d 996, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12045 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County, rendered May 21, 1979, convicting him of rape in the [937]*937first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. Judgment reversed, on the facts, and indictment dismissed. This case is remitted to the County Court, Suffolk County, for the purpose of entering an order in its discretion pursuant to CPL 160.50. The circumstances of this case—particularly those surrounding the complainant’s identification of the defendant at trial and the purported admission by defendant that he had been the driver of the vehicle in which the incident occurred—lead us to the conclusion that the evidence adduced did not support the verdict beyond a reasonable doubt. Lazer, J. P., Gibbons, Rabin and O’Connor, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County, rendered May 21, 1979, convicting him of rape in the [937]*937first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. Judgment reversed, on the facts, and indictment dismissed. This case is remitted to the County Court, Suffolk County, for the purpose of entering an order in its discretion pursuant to CPL 160.50. The circumstances of this case—particularly those surrounding the complainant’s identification of the defendant at trial and the purported admission by defendant that he had been the driver of the vehicle in which the incident occurred—lead us to the conclusion that the evidence adduced did not support the verdict beyond a reasonable doubt. Lazer, J. P., Gibbons, Rabin and O’Connor, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

76 A.D.2d 936, 428 N.Y.S.2d 996, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12045, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-rodas-nyappdiv-1980.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack