From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Cowan

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 17, 1993
193 A.D.2d 753 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)

Opinion

May 17, 1993

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Douglass, J.).


Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant's contention with respect to the trial court's Sandoval ruling (see, People v Sandoval, 34 N.Y.2d 371), is without merit. The prior convictions of robbery and burglary which the court did not exclude as a subject of cross-examination in the event that the defendant took the stand were directly probative of his credibility, inasmuch as those convictions involved acts of individual dishonesty and untrustworthiness (see, People v Pavao, 59 N.Y.2d 282; People v Hamlin, 153 A.D.2d 644; People v Johnson, 122 A.D.2d 812).

Moreover, the defendant's contention that the evidence adduced at trial was legally insufficient to establish his guilt of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree (see, Penal Law § 265.02) is unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05; People v Bynum, 70 N.Y.2d 858; People v Udzinski, 146 A.D.2d 245). In any event, viewing the evidence adduced at the trial in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see, People v Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The defendant was convicted of unlawfully possessing a loaded gun. Although the gun was found behind a trailer on a deserted street, behind which the defendant had fled immediately prior to his apprehension, the complainants identified the gun as the gun they had observed in his possession shortly prior thereto. Since criminal possession of a weapon is a continuing offense, the jury could conclude, under these circumstances, that the defendant constructively possessed the gun at the time he was apprehended because he had asserted dominion and control over it (see, Penal Law § 10.00; People v Sykes, 142 A.D.2d 697). Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15). Bracken, J.P., Rosenblatt, Pizzuto and Santucci, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Cowan

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 17, 1993
193 A.D.2d 753 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)
Case details for

People v. Cowan

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. RUSSELL COWAN…

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

Date published: May 17, 1993

Citations

193 A.D.2d 753 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)
598 N.Y.S.2d 987

Citing Cases

People v. Williams

We agree with the Supreme Court's Sandoval ruling (seePeople v. Sandoval, 34 N.Y.2d 371, 357 N.Y.S.2d 849,…

People v. Williams

We agree with the Supreme Court's Sandoval ruling (see People v Sandoval, 34 NY2d 371), which permitted the…