People v. Williams

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Williams

2 A.D.3d 760, 769 N.Y.S.2d 797, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13879

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

DecidedDecember 22, 2003

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 2 A.D.3d 760 (People v. Williams) 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. Williams, 2 A.D.3d 760, 769 N.Y.S.2d 797, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13879 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

[761]*761Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Lott, J.), rendered December 17, 2001, convicting him of murder in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant claims that the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury that a prosecution witness could be considered an accomplice as a matter of fact, whose testimony required corroboration. However, the subject witness was, at most, an “accessory after the fact,” whose testimony needs no corroboration under CPL 60.22 (People v Dygert, 229 AD2d 735, 736 [1996]; People v Sacco, 199 AD2d 288, 289 [1993]). Accordingly, an accomplice corroboration charge would not have been warranted (see People v Young, 235 AD2d 441, 442 [1997]; People v Brown, 221 AD2d 270, 271 [1995]; People v Montgomery, 178 AD2d 663 [1991]). Krausman, J.P., Schmidt, Mastro and Rivera, JJ., concur.

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

[761]*761Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Lott, J.), rendered December 17, 2001, convicting him of murder in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant claims that the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury that a prosecution witness could be considered an accomplice as a matter of fact, whose testimony required corroboration. However, the subject witness was, at most, an “accessory after the fact,” whose testimony needs no corroboration under CPL 60.22 (People v Dygert, 229 AD2d 735, 736 [1996]; People v Sacco, 199 AD2d 288, 289 [1993]). Accordingly, an accomplice corroboration charge would not have been warranted (see People v Young, 235 AD2d 441, 442 [1997]; People v Brown, 221 AD2d 270, 271 [1995]; People v Montgomery, 178 AD2d 663 [1991]). Krausman, J.P., Schmidt, Mastro and Rivera, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2 A.D.3d 760, 769 N.Y.S.2d 797, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13879, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-williams-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack