People v. Valentin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Valentin

29 A.D.3d 923, 815 N.Y.S.2d 262

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

DecidedMay 23, 2006

StatusPublished

This text of 29 A.D.3d 923 (People v. Valentin) 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. Valentin, 29 A.D.3d 923, 815 N.Y.S.2d 262 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Blackburne, J.), rendered January 9, 2004, convicting him of robbery in the first degree (two counts) and robbery in the second degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

[924]*924Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Evidence that the defendant engaged in a robbery with an uncharged accomplice was relevant and admissible to prove that he committed the robbery while “aided by another person actually present” (see Penal Law § 160.10 [1]; People v Hinton, 252 AD2d 428, 429 [1998]; People v Hurd, 160 AD2d 199, 199-200 [1990]). Thus, the admission of such evidence did not deprive the defendant of a fair trial. Miller, J.P., Ritter, Skelos and Lifson, 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, Queens County (Blackburne, J.), rendered January 9, 2004, convicting him of robbery in the first degree (two counts) and robbery in the second degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

[924]*924Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Evidence that the defendant engaged in a robbery with an uncharged accomplice was relevant and admissible to prove that he committed the robbery while “aided by another person actually present” (see Penal Law § 160.10 [1]; People v Hinton, 252 AD2d 428, 429 [1998]; People v Hurd, 160 AD2d 199, 199-200 [1990]). Thus, the admission of such evidence did not deprive the defendant of a fair trial. Miller, J.P., Ritter, Skelos and Lifson, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

29 A.D.3d 923, 815 N.Y.S.2d 262, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-valentin-nyappdiv-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack