People v. Springle

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Springle

49 A.D.2d 929, 373 N.Y.S.2d 651, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11200

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

DecidedOctober 20, 1975

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 49 A.D.2d 929 (People v. Springle) 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. Springle, 49 A.D.2d 929, 373 N.Y.S.2d 651, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11200 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1975).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered March 29, 1974, convicting him of robbery in the first degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. Judgment affirmed. On the record on this appeal, the in-court identification of appellant by the three eyewitnesses to the robbery was properly received in evidence. The other issues raised with respect to the identification of appellant as the robber relate to the credibility of the witnesses and were for the jury’s consideration. On the record, the verdict [930]*930should not be disturbed and appellant received a fair trial. Latham, Acting P. J., Cohalan, Brennan, Munder and Shapiro, 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 Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered March 29, 1974, convicting him of robbery in the first degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. Judgment affirmed. On the record on this appeal, the in-court identification of appellant by the three eyewitnesses to the robbery was properly received in evidence. The other issues raised with respect to the identification of appellant as the robber relate to the credibility of the witnesses and were for the jury’s consideration. On the record, the verdict [930]*930should not be disturbed and appellant received a fair trial. Latham, Acting P. J., Cohalan, Brennan, Munder and Shapiro, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

49 A.D.2d 929, 373 N.Y.S.2d 651, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11200, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-springle-nyappdiv-1975.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack