People v. Trigger

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Trigger

210 A.D.2d 359, 620 N.Y.S.2d 276

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

DecidedDecember 12, 1994

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 210 A.D.2d 359 (People v. Trigger) 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. Trigger, 210 A.D.2d 359, 620 N.Y.S.2d 276 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Kelly, J.), rendered August 11, 1993, convicting him of criminal possession of stolen property in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see, People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15 [5]). Further, the court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in rendering its Sandoval ruling (see, People v Pavao, 59 NY2d 282; People v Williams, 56 NY2d 236; People v Sandoval, 34 NY2d 371).

The defendant’s claim that his privilege against self-incrimination was violated is not preserved for appellant review, and, in any event, is without merit (see, People v De George, 73 NY2d 614; People v Savage, 50 NY2d 673, cert denied 449 US 1016; People v Harrison, 149 AD2d 434).

We have considered the defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Sullivan, J. P., Rosenblatt, Miller and Ritter, 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, Rockland County (Kelly, J.), rendered August 11, 1993, convicting him of criminal possession of stolen property in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see, People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15 [5]). Further, the court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in rendering its Sandoval ruling (see, People v Pavao, 59 NY2d 282; People v Williams, 56 NY2d 236; People v Sandoval, 34 NY2d 371).

The defendant’s claim that his privilege against self-incrimination was violated is not preserved for appellant review, and, in any event, is without merit (see, People v De George, 73 NY2d 614; People v Savage, 50 NY2d 673, cert denied 449 US 1016; People v Harrison, 149 AD2d 434).

We have considered the defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Sullivan, J. P., Rosenblatt, Miller and Ritter, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

210 A.D.2d 359, 620 N.Y.S.2d 276, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-trigger-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack