From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Campola

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Feb 3, 1994
201 A.D.2d 290 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)

Opinion

February 3, 1994

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Jay Gold, J.).


Defendant and co-defendant Maria Sanchez accosted the victim in the lobby of the building and defendant demanded the victim's money. In the ensuing struggle, defendant hit the victim in the head with a gun and Sanchez grabbed the victim's currency, and both fled. During a neighborhood canvass with police shortly afterward, both were apprehended.

Viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the People, and giving due deference to the jury's findings of credibility according to the standard set forth in People v. Bleakley ( 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495), defendant's guilt was proved by legally sufficient and overwhelming evidence, and the verdict was not against the weight of that evidence. Defendant's present challenge to the manner in which the voir dire was conducted and his objection to the two day delay before the jury was sworn is identical to the challenge considered and rejected in our affirmance of codefendant Sanchez's conviction (People v Sanchez, 197 A.D.2d 419), and we perceive no reason to depart from that ruling. We also adhere to our ruling in People v. Sanchez (supra) in concluding that no reasonable view of the evidence supported the submission of the requested lesser included offenses. With regard to the destruction of the evidence, his failure to seek pretrial relief resulting therefrom, the marginal value of that evidence (see, People v. Haupt, 71 N.Y.2d 929), counsel's opportunity to challenge testimony concerning the evidence (see, People v. Simms, 122 A.D.2d 860, 861, lv denied 68 N.Y.2d 918), and the lack of bad faith by law enforcement authorities (see, People v. Wells, 144 A.D.2d 400, lv denied 73 N.Y.2d 861), all support the trial court's refusal to provide an adverse inference instruction. We reject defendant's present claim that this was reversible error and that the destruction of the evidence warrants dismissal (see, People v. Haupt, supra).

We have examined defendant's remaining contentions, and find them to be unpreserved or meritless.

Concur — Carro, J.P., Ellerin, Rubin, Nardelli and Tom, JJ.


Summaries of

People v. Campola

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Feb 3, 1994
201 A.D.2d 290 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)
Case details for

People v. Campola

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. JOSE CAMPOLA, Also…

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

Date published: Feb 3, 1994

Citations

201 A.D.2d 290 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)
607 N.Y.S.2d 276

Citing Cases

People v. Rice

An analysis showing cocaine residue in the pipe would still not have proven that the complainant had ingested…

People v. Messina

This testimony sufficed to authenticate the videotape footage preserved in the trial exhibit ( e.g.People v.…