People v. Romaine

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Romaine

2017 NY Slip Op 2728, 149 A.D.3d 442, 51 N.Y.S.3d 72

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

DecidedApril 6, 2017

Docket3640 4201/13

StatusPublished

This text of 2017 NY Slip Op 2728 (People v. Romaine) 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. Romaine, 2017 NY Slip Op 2728, 149 A.D.3d 442, 51 N.Y.S.3d 72 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Melissa C. Jackson, J.), rendered April 22, 2014, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of robbery in the third degree, and sentencing her to five years’ probation, and ordering her to pay restitution, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 348-349 [2007]). Moreover, the evidence of defendant’s guilt was overwhelming. There is no basis for disturbing the jury’s credibility determinations. The evidence lacked any reasonable explanation other than that defendant, who was motivated to steal the victim’s phone because it contained a damaging recording of defendant, used pepper spray on the victim for the purpose of stealing the phone, and stole it as part of a single incident.

Even if the court improvidently exercised its discretion when it denied defendant’s request to introduce extrinsic evidence of an alleged prior inconsistent statement made by the victim, any error in the court’s ruling was harmless (see People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230 [1975]).

Concur — Renwick, J.P., Mazzarelli, Manzanet-Daniels, Feinman and Webber, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Melissa C. Jackson, J.), rendered April 22, 2014, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of robbery in the third degree, and sentencing her to five years’ probation, and ordering her to pay restitution, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 348-349 [2007]). Moreover, the evidence of defendant’s guilt was overwhelming. There is no basis for disturbing the jury’s credibility determinations. The evidence lacked any reasonable explanation other than that defendant, who was motivated to steal the victim’s phone because it contained a damaging recording of defendant, used pepper spray on the victim for the purpose of stealing the phone, and stole it as part of a single incident.

Even if the court improvidently exercised its discretion when it denied defendant’s request to introduce extrinsic evidence of an alleged prior inconsistent statement made by the victim, any error in the court’s ruling was harmless (see People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230 [1975]).

Concur — Renwick, J.P., Mazzarelli, Manzanet-Daniels, Feinman and Webber, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2017 NY Slip Op 2728, 149 A.D.3d 442, 51 N.Y.S.3d 72, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-romaine-nyappdiv-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack