People v. Visconti

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Visconti

127 A.D.2d 867, 512 N.Y.S.2d 248, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 43376

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

DecidedFebruary 23, 1987

StatusPublished

This text of 127 A.D.2d 867 (People v. Visconti) 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. Visconti, 127 A.D.2d 867, 512 N.Y.S.2d 248, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 43376 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a [868]*868judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Grajales, J.), rendered April 25, 1983, convicting him of attempted criminal possession of stolen property in the second degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for further proceedings pursuant to CPL 460.50 (5).

The trial court did not err in charging that the jury could infer that the defendant knew the jewelry in question was stolen if it found that the defendant was in the business of buying, selling or otherwise dealing in property and had not ascertained by reasonable inquiry that the seller had a legal right to possess the property (see, Penal Law § 165.55 [2]; People v Isolano, 121 AD2d 470). Contrary to the defendant’s claim, the charge indicated that the jury was both free to reject the presumption in the first instance and to disregard it, even if it initially accepted it, if it found that other evidence had rebutted the presumption. Any danger that the language employed could have shifted or diluted the People’s burden of proof (see, Sandstrom v Montana, 442 US 510, 517), was alleviated by the court’s explicit instruction to the contrary.

We have considered the defendant’s remaining contentions and have found them to be without merit. Thompson, J. P., Niehoff, Weinstein and Eiber, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by the defendant from a [868]*868judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Grajales, J.), rendered April 25, 1983, convicting him of attempted criminal possession of stolen property in the second degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for further proceedings pursuant to CPL 460.50 (5).

The trial court did not err in charging that the jury could infer that the defendant knew the jewelry in question was stolen if it found that the defendant was in the business of buying, selling or otherwise dealing in property and had not ascertained by reasonable inquiry that the seller had a legal right to possess the property (see, Penal Law § 165.55 [2]; People v Isolano, 121 AD2d 470). Contrary to the defendant’s claim, the charge indicated that the jury was both free to reject the presumption in the first instance and to disregard it, even if it initially accepted it, if it found that other evidence had rebutted the presumption. Any danger that the language employed could have shifted or diluted the People’s burden of proof (see, Sandstrom v Montana, 442 US 510, 517), was alleviated by the court’s explicit instruction to the contrary.

We have considered the defendant’s remaining contentions and have found them to be without merit. Thompson, J. P., Niehoff, Weinstein and Eiber, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

127 A.D.2d 867, 512 N.Y.S.2d 248, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 43376, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-visconti-nyappdiv-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack