People v. Stevens

277 A.D.2d 1035, 715 N.Y.S.2d 676, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11536
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in People v. Stevens. Read the opinion of the Court — 298 A.D.2d 267

Opinion

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly admitted in evidence the hearsay statements of the victim. Those statements were relevant to establish defendant’s motive, and their probative value outweighed their potential for prejudice (see, People v Mixon, 203 AD2d 909, lv denied 84 NY2d 830, 909). Defendant failed to preserve for our review his contention that the prosecutor’s summation was inflammatory (see, CPL 470.05 [2]), and we decline to exercise our power to review that contention as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see, CPL 470.15 [6] [a]). Defendant’s further contention that the conviction is not supported by legally sufficient evidence is also unpreserved for our review (see, People v Gray, 86 NY2d 10, 19). The sentence is neither unduly harsh [1036]*1036nor severe. We have reviewed defendant’s remaining contentions and conclude that they lack merit. (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Erie County, Buscaglia, J. — Murder, 2nd Degree.) Present — Pine, J. P., Hayes, Wisner, Kehoe and Lawton, JJ.

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

People v. Stevens, 277 A.D.2d 1035, 715 N.Y.S.2d 676, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11536 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

277 A.D.2d 1035 (People v. Stevens) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

People v. Gray
652 N.E.2d 919 (New York Court of Appeals, 1995)
People v. Mixon
203 A.D.2d 909 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1994)