People v. Rouse

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Rouse

282 A.D.2d 319, 723 N.Y.S.2d 360, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3903

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

DecidedApril 17, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 282 A.D.2d 319 (People v. Rouse) 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. Rouse, 282 A.D.2d 319, 723 N.Y.S.2d 360, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3903 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Robert Seewald, J.), rendered February 24, 1998, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of robbery in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 3 to 6 years, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence. There is no basis upon which to disturb the jury’s determinations concerning identification and credibility. Although the victim could not make an in-court identification, his prior identification of defendant (see, CPL 60.25), as well as compelling circumstantial evidence, clearly established defendant’s identity as the perpetrator. Concur — Nardelli, J. P., Mazzarelli, Andrias, Saxe and Friedman, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Robert Seewald, J.), rendered February 24, 1998, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of robbery in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 3 to 6 years, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence. There is no basis upon which to disturb the jury’s determinations concerning identification and credibility. Although the victim could not make an in-court identification, his prior identification of defendant (see, CPL 60.25), as well as compelling circumstantial evidence, clearly established defendant’s identity as the perpetrator. Concur — Nardelli, J. P., Mazzarelli, Andrias, Saxe and Friedman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

282 A.D.2d 319, 723 N.Y.S.2d 360, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3903, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-rouse-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack