People v. Romaine

2 Citing cases

  1. People v. Douze

    186 A.D.2d 753 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)   Cited 5 times

    , People v Waller, 131 A.D.2d 898, 899). Thus, under these circumstances, particularly the defendant's written admission, this case does not come within the purview of cases described by the Court of Appeals in People v Baskerville (supra), in which there is evidence from which the jury could conclude that the defendant participated in the burglary, but where there is also a reasonable view of the evidence under which the jury could find that the defendant acquired possession after the theft (see, e.g., People v Romaine, 128 A.D.2d 561, 562; People v Thornton, 104 A.D.2d 426, 427; People v Seaman, 96 A.D.2d 603, 604). Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15). Bracken, J.P., Harwood, Balletta and Eiber, JJ., concur.

  2. People v. Luperena

    159 A.D.2d 727 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)   Cited 8 times

    Further, reversal in the interest of justice is not warranted (cf., People v Romaine, 128 A.D.2d 561, 562). We note that, while this statement that the "proof" adduced at trial established that the defendant had in fact possessed the property alleged to have been stolen accurately summarizes the testimony of the prosecution's witnesses, who testified that the defendant was in actual possession of the stolen property, it directly contradicts the defendant's claim that he was never in possession either of the shopping cart or of the stolen property which was recovered from it.