People v. Yao Afolabi

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Yao Afolabi

32 A.D.3d 861, 820 N.Y.S.2d 852

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

DecidedSeptember 12, 2006

StatusPublished

This text of 32 A.D.3d 861 (People v. Yao Afolabi) 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. Yao Afolabi, 32 A.D.3d 861, 820 N.Y.S.2d 852 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

[862]*862Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Katz, J.), rendered July 1, 2004, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, reckless endangerment in the first degree (four counts), assault in the second degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Any error in the court’s failure to grant the defendant’s request for a missing witness charge was rendered harmless by the overwhelming proof of guilt, which included the identification testimony of the two witnesses and a direct connection between the defendant and the weapon used to commit the crimes (see People v Morales, 288 AD2d 328, 329 [2001]). Adams, J.P., Krausman, Fisher and Dillon, JJ., concur.

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

[862]*862Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Katz, J.), rendered July 1, 2004, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, reckless endangerment in the first degree (four counts), assault in the second degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Any error in the court’s failure to grant the defendant’s request for a missing witness charge was rendered harmless by the overwhelming proof of guilt, which included the identification testimony of the two witnesses and a direct connection between the defendant and the weapon used to commit the crimes (see People v Morales, 288 AD2d 328, 329 [2001]). Adams, J.P., Krausman, Fisher and Dillon, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

32 A.D.3d 861, 820 N.Y.S.2d 852, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-yao-afolabi-nyappdiv-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack