People v. Stenson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Stenson

68 A.D.3d 418, 890 N.Y.2d 491

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

DecidedDecember 1, 2009

StatusPublished

This text of 68 A.D.3d 418 (People v. Stenson) 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. Stenson, 68 A.D.3d 418, 890 N.Y.2d 491 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

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]). There is no basis for disturbing the jury’s determinations that defendant is the person depicted in a series of surveillance videotapes.

Under the exacting standard that must be satisfied before the extraordinary remedy of dismissal of the indictment is warranted (see People v Darby, 75 NY2d 449, 455 [1990]), we find no impairment of the integrity of the grand jury proceeding. The People’s questioning of witnesses and instructions to the grand jury were appropriate, and any defects did not warrant dismissal.

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence or directing [419]*419that it be served concurrently with the sentence for defendant’s other conviction. Concur — Mazzarelli, J.E, Sweeny, Catterson, Freedman and Roman, JJ.

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

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]). There is no basis for disturbing the jury’s determinations that defendant is the person depicted in a series of surveillance videotapes.

Under the exacting standard that must be satisfied before the extraordinary remedy of dismissal of the indictment is warranted (see People v Darby, 75 NY2d 449, 455 [1990]), we find no impairment of the integrity of the grand jury proceeding. The People’s questioning of witnesses and instructions to the grand jury were appropriate, and any defects did not warrant dismissal.

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence or directing [419]*419that it be served concurrently with the sentence for defendant’s other conviction. Concur — Mazzarelli, J.E, Sweeny, Catterson, Freedman and Roman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

68 A.D.3d 418, 890 N.Y.2d 491, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-stenson-nyappdiv-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack