People v. Spurgeon

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Spurgeon

264 A.D.2d 401, 695 N.Y.S.2d 106, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8492

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

DecidedAugust 2, 1999

StatusPublished

This text of 264 A.D.2d 401 (People v. Spurgeon) 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. Spurgeon, 264 A.D.2d 401, 695 N.Y.S.2d 106, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8492 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Erlbaum, J.), rendered January 21, 1998, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, robbery in the second degree, and menacing in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant contends that the trial court erred in permitting the People to introduce the defendant’s Grand Jury testimony into evidence on their rebuttal case. We disagree. In light of the inconsistencies between the defendant’s Grand Jury testimony and the account furnished by his alibi witnesses at trial, the defendant’s Grand Jury testimony was properly introduced as an admission (see, People v Rodriguez, 191 AD2d 597; People v Koestler, 176 AD2d 1207).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. O’Brien, J. P., Sullivan, Joy and Smith, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Erlbaum, J.), rendered January 21, 1998, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, robbery in the second degree, and menacing in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant contends that the trial court erred in permitting the People to introduce the defendant’s Grand Jury testimony into evidence on their rebuttal case. We disagree. In light of the inconsistencies between the defendant’s Grand Jury testimony and the account furnished by his alibi witnesses at trial, the defendant’s Grand Jury testimony was properly introduced as an admission (see, People v Rodriguez, 191 AD2d 597; People v Koestler, 176 AD2d 1207).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. O’Brien, J. P., Sullivan, Joy and Smith, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

264 A.D.2d 401, 695 N.Y.S.2d 106, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8492, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-spurgeon-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack