From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. DeJesus

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Dec 3, 1998
256 A.D.2d 59 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)

Opinion

December 3, 1998

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Howard Bell, J.).


Defendant's request for a charge on the evaluation of a wholly circumstantial case was properly denied. The evidence of defendant's guilt as an accomplice was both direct and circumstantial, a situation which eliminates any necessity for a circumstantial evidence charge (People v. Roldan, 211 A.D.2d 366, 370, affd 88 N.Y.2d 826; People v. Holmes, 204 A.D.2d 243, lv denied 84 N.Y.2d 868). In any event, we note the overwhelming evidence of defendant's guilt (see, People v. Brian, 84 N.Y.2d 887).

Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Wallach, Rubin and Saxe, JJ.


Summaries of

People v. DeJesus

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Dec 3, 1998
256 A.D.2d 59 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
Case details for

People v. DeJesus

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. DANNY DeJESUS…

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

Date published: Dec 3, 1998

Citations

256 A.D.2d 59 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
682 N.Y.S.2d 33

Citing Cases

People v. Smith [1st Dept 2000

Defendant failed to preserve his present claim that the court should have given a standard circumstantial…

People v. Smith

Defendant failed to preserve his present claim that the court should have given a standard circumstantial…