People v. Yopp

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Yopp

142 A.D.2d 982, 530 N.Y.S.2d 403, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15018

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

DecidedJuly 7, 1988

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 142 A.D.2d 982 (People v. Yopp) 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. Yopp, 142 A.D.2d 982, 530 N.Y.S.2d 403, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15018 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment affirmed. All concur, Dillon, P. J., not participating. Memorandum: The recent, unexplained, exclusive possession of the fruits of the crime entitled the jury to infer that defendant committed the larceny and burglary (see, People v Shurn, 69 AD2d 64, 68-69; see also, Knickerbocker v People, 43 NY 177; People v Donaldson, 107 AD2d 758; People v Measheaw, 108 AD2d 952). The requirement that defendant’s possession be exclusive was satisfied by possession which was joint with others with whom he acted in concert (see, People v Shurn, supra, at 69).

The court did not err in refusing to grant defendant’s request for a missing witness charge. The request made after the completion of summations and the court’s charge, was untimely (see, People v Gonzalez, 68 NY2d 424, 427-428).

We have examined defendant’s remaining contention and determine that it lacks merit. (Appeal from judgment of Erie County Court, McCarthy, J.—burglary, second degree.) Present —Dillon, P. J., Denman, Boomer, Pine and Balio, JJ.

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

Judgment affirmed. All concur, Dillon, P. J., not participating. Memorandum: The recent, unexplained, exclusive possession of the fruits of the crime entitled the jury to infer that defendant committed the larceny and burglary (see, People v Shurn, 69 AD2d 64, 68-69; see also, Knickerbocker v People, 43 NY 177; People v Donaldson, 107 AD2d 758; People v Measheaw, 108 AD2d 952). The requirement that defendant’s possession be exclusive was satisfied by possession which was joint with others with whom he acted in concert (see, People v Shurn, supra, at 69).

The court did not err in refusing to grant defendant’s request for a missing witness charge. The request made after the completion of summations and the court’s charge, was untimely (see, People v Gonzalez, 68 NY2d 424, 427-428).

We have examined defendant’s remaining contention and determine that it lacks merit. (Appeal from judgment of Erie County Court, McCarthy, J.—burglary, second degree.) Present —Dillon, P. J., Denman, Boomer, Pine and Balio, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

142 A.D.2d 982, 530 N.Y.S.2d 403, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15018, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-yopp-nyappdiv-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack