From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. Lacewell

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 16, 2007
44 A.D.3d 876 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007)

Opinion

No. 2005-03761.

October 16, 2007.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Rooney, J.), rendered April 13, 2005, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fourth degree, assault in the second degree, assault in the third degree, and resisting arrest, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Lynn W. L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (Tonya Plank of counsel), for appellant.

Daniel M. Donovan, Jr., District Attorney, Staten Island, N.Y. (Morrie I. Kleinbart and James Ching of counsel), for respondent.

Before: Rivera, J.P., Covello, Angiolillo and Dickerson, JJ., concur.


Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant contends that the court erred in charging the jury that it might infer a "consciousness of guilt" from a threat that he made at a police station, soon after his arrest. However, any error in giving the charge was harmless, as there was overwhelming evidence of the defendant's guilt, and no significant probability that the error contributed to his convictions ( see People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230, 241-242; cf. People v Heman, 198 AD2d 434, 435).

The sentence imposed was not excessive ( see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80, 85-86).


Summaries of

State v. Lacewell

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 16, 2007
44 A.D.3d 876 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007)
Case details for

State v. Lacewell

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. TIMOTHY LACEWELL…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Oct 16, 2007

Citations

44 A.D.3d 876 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007)
2007 N.Y. Slip Op. 7865
842 N.Y.S.2d 920

Citing Cases

People v. Moore

05; People v Forino, 39 AD3d 664, 665). In any event, any error was harmless ( see People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d…

People v. Sampson

The defendant contends that he was deprived of a fair trial by certain remarks made by the prosecutor during…