People v. Welch

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Welch

276 A.D.2d 421, 717 N.Y.S.2d 514, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10730

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

DecidedOctober 26, 2000

StatusPublished

This text of 276 A.D.2d 421 (People v. Welch) 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. Welch, 276 A.D.2d 421, 717 N.Y.S.2d 514, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10730 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Lawrence Tonetti, J.), rendered June 23, 1997, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of robbery in the second degree, and sentencing him to a term of 3 to 9 years, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence. We see no reason to disturb the jury’s determinations concerning credibility. The evidence clearly establishes a forcible taking while aided by other persons actually present (Penal Law § 160.10 [1]).

The court properly exercised its discretion in denying defendant’s request to receive in evidence the report of the complainant’s 911 call, since the inconsistency it contained was elicited by defendant during cross-examination, at which time the complainant fully admitted the inconsistency (see, People v Piazza, 48 NY2d 151, 164-165). Concur — Williams, J. P., Tom, Mazzarelli, Andrias and Buckley, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Lawrence Tonetti, J.), rendered June 23, 1997, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of robbery in the second degree, and sentencing him to a term of 3 to 9 years, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence. We see no reason to disturb the jury’s determinations concerning credibility. The evidence clearly establishes a forcible taking while aided by other persons actually present (Penal Law § 160.10 [1]).

The court properly exercised its discretion in denying defendant’s request to receive in evidence the report of the complainant’s 911 call, since the inconsistency it contained was elicited by defendant during cross-examination, at which time the complainant fully admitted the inconsistency (see, People v Piazza, 48 NY2d 151, 164-165). Concur — Williams, J. P., Tom, Mazzarelli, Andrias and Buckley, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

276 A.D.2d 421, 717 N.Y.S.2d 514, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10730, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-welch-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack