People v. Tharpe

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Tharpe

92 A.D.3d 701, 937 N.Y.2d 888

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided February 7, 2012·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

[702] The defendant’s contention that the verdict was repugnant because the jury found her guilty of falsifying business records in the first degree while acquitting her of grand larceny in the second degree is unpreserved for appellate review, as she failed to raise this issue before the jury was discharged (see People v Alfaro, 66 NY2d 985, 987 [1985]; People u Vazquez, 82 AD3d 1273, 1275 [2011]; People v Ariza, 77 AD3d 844, 845-846 [2010]). In any event, viewing the elements of the offenses as charged to the jury (see People v Tucker, 55 NY2d 1, 7 [1981]), the acquittal on the count of grand larceny in the second degree did not negate any of the elements of falsifying business records in the first degree (see People v Crane, 87 AD3d 1386, 1386 [2011], lv denied 17 NY3d 952 [2011]).

Upon our independent review pursuant to CPL 470.15 (5), we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633 [2006]).

The defendant’s remaining contention is without merit. Mastro, A.PJ., Angiolillo, Eng and Cohen, JJ., concur.

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

[702] The defendant’s contention that the verdict was repugnant because the jury found her guilty of falsifying business records in the first degree while acquitting her of grand larceny in the second degree is unpreserved for appellate review, as she failed to raise this issue before the jury was discharged (see People v Alfaro, 66 NY2d 985, 987 [1985]; People u Vazquez, 82 AD3d 1273, 1275 [2011]; People v Ariza, 77 AD3d 844, 845-846 [2010]). In any event, viewing the elements of the offenses as charged to the jury (see People v Tucker, 55 NY2d 1, 7 [1981]), the acquittal on the count of grand larceny in the second degree did not negate any of the elements of falsifying business records in the first degree (see People v Crane, 87 AD3d 1386, 1386 [2011], lv denied 17 NY3d 952 [2011]).

Upon our independent review pursuant to CPL 470.15 (5), we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633 [2006]).

The defendant’s remaining contention is without merit. Mastro, A.PJ., Angiolillo, Eng and Cohen, JJ., concur.

People v. Tharpe, 92 A.D.3d 701, 937 N.Y.2d 888 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

92 A.D.3d 701 (People v. Tharpe) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related