People v. Vargas

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Vargas

60 A.D.3d 480, 875 N.Y.S.2d 36

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

DecidedMarch 12, 2009

StatusPublished

This text of 60 A.D.3d 480 (People v. Vargas) 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. Vargas, 60 A.D.3d 480, 875 N.Y.S.2d 36 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Daniel P. FitzGerald, J), rendered August 2, 2007, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of two counts of robbery in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a persistent violent felony offender, to concurrent terms of 25 years to life, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly exercised its discretion in admitting evidence that, following an unspecified 911 call, defendant was arrested at a store in Brooklyn with an air pistol in his waistband that resembled the weapon used in the two store robberies of which defendant was convicted. Defendant argues that the testimony should have been limited to defendant having been “located with a fake gun,” and that the additional details were unduly prejudicial. However, these limited details were relevant to complete the narrative by explaining how the air pistol came into the People’s possession and how defendant came to be placed in a lineup and arrested for the charged crimes (see People v Till, 87 NY2d 835 [1995]; People v Ashley, 296 AD2d 339, 340 [2002], lv denied 99 NY2d 533 [2002]). This testimony did not imply that defendant had also robbed the Brooklyn store, and the court’s thorough limiting instruction minimized any prejudicial effect. Concur—Andrias, J.P., Saxe, Acosta and Renwick, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Daniel P. FitzGerald, J), rendered August 2, 2007, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of two counts of robbery in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a persistent violent felony offender, to concurrent terms of 25 years to life, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly exercised its discretion in admitting evidence that, following an unspecified 911 call, defendant was arrested at a store in Brooklyn with an air pistol in his waistband that resembled the weapon used in the two store robberies of which defendant was convicted. Defendant argues that the testimony should have been limited to defendant having been “located with a fake gun,” and that the additional details were unduly prejudicial. However, these limited details were relevant to complete the narrative by explaining how the air pistol came into the People’s possession and how defendant came to be placed in a lineup and arrested for the charged crimes (see People v Till, 87 NY2d 835 [1995]; People v Ashley, 296 AD2d 339, 340 [2002], lv denied 99 NY2d 533 [2002]). This testimony did not imply that defendant had also robbed the Brooklyn store, and the court’s thorough limiting instruction minimized any prejudicial effect. Concur—Andrias, J.P., Saxe, Acosta and Renwick, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

60 A.D.3d 480, 875 N.Y.S.2d 36, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-vargas-nyappdiv-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack