People v. Taliaferro

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Taliaferro

254 A.D.2d 822, 678 N.Y.S.2d 765

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

DecidedOctober 2, 1998

DocketAppeal No. 1

StatusPublished

This text of 254 A.D.2d 822 (People v. Taliaferro) 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. Taliaferro, 254 A.D.2d 822, 678 N.Y.S.2d 765 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon a jury verdict of robbery in the first degree (Penal Law §§ 20.00, 160.15 [4]) and robbery in the second degree (Penal Law § 160.10 [1]). There is no merit to his contentions that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence, that Supreme Court erred in failing to impose sanctions for the prosecutor’s failure to turn over Rosario material, and that the court erred in instructing the jury, over defendant’s objection, regarding consciousness of guilt (see, People v Boyd, 254AD2d 740 [decided herewith]). We further conclude that the sentence is neither unduly harsh nor severe. (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Erie County, Ros[823]*823setti, J. — Robbery, 1st Degree.) Present — Green, J. P., Lawton, Callahan, Balio and Fallon, JJ.

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

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon a jury verdict of robbery in the first degree (Penal Law §§ 20.00, 160.15 [4]) and robbery in the second degree (Penal Law § 160.10 [1]). There is no merit to his contentions that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence, that Supreme Court erred in failing to impose sanctions for the prosecutor’s failure to turn over Rosario material, and that the court erred in instructing the jury, over defendant’s objection, regarding consciousness of guilt (see, People v Boyd, 254AD2d 740 [decided herewith]). We further conclude that the sentence is neither unduly harsh nor severe. (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Erie County, Ros[823]*823setti, J. — Robbery, 1st Degree.) Present — Green, J. P., Lawton, Callahan, Balio and Fallon, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

254 A.D.2d 822, 678 N.Y.S.2d 765, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-taliaferro-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack