From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Nurse

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 1, 2004
5 A.D.3d 401 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)

Opinion

2002-05537.

Decided March 1, 2004.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of conviction of the County Court, Dutchess County (Hayes, J.), rendered May 20, 2002, convicting him of burglary in the first degree (two counts) and attempted robbery in the first degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Salvatore C. Adamo, New York, N.Y., for appellant.

William V. Grady, District Attorney, Poughkeepsie, N.Y. (Joan H. McCarthy of counsel), for respondent.

Before: DAVID S. RITTER, J.P., FRED T. SANTUCCI, THOMAS A. ADAMS and STEPHEN G. CRANE, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

The statements made by the codefendant during his plea allocution were properly admitted at trial as declarations against penal interest to establish an element of the crimes charged ( see People v. Thomas, 68 N.Y.2d 194, 197, cert den 480 U.S. 948; People v. Safford, 297 A.D.2d 828).

Contrary to the defendant's contention, the complainant's testimony as to why he initially lied to the police about the defendant's identity was not impermissible evidence of uncharged crimes. The trial court properly received evidence that the complainant was aware of the defendant's prior criminal history and membership in a gang in order to establish the complainant's state of mind with respect to why he initially lied to the police and told them that he did not know the identity of the defendant ( see People v. Boatwright, 297 A.D.2d 603; People v. Ealey, 272 A.D.2d 269, 270; cf. People v. Stevens, 174 A.D.2d 640, 641).

Viewing the evidence 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. 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 470.20(2)).

The defendant was not denied his right to effective assistance of counsel ( see People v. Benevento, 91 N.Y.2d 708; People v. Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137).

The sentence imposed was not excessive ( see People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).

The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit.

RITTER, J.P., SANTUCCI, ADAMS and CRANE, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Nurse

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 1, 2004
5 A.D.3d 401 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)
Case details for

People v. Nurse

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE, ETC., respondent, v. NATHANIEL NURSE, appellant

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

Date published: Mar 1, 2004

Citations

5 A.D.3d 401 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)
771 N.Y.S.2d 906

Citing Cases

People v. Roberts

Moreover, upon our independent review pursuant to CPL 470.15 (5), we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt…

People v. Nurse

May 26, 2004. Appeal from the 2d Dept: 5 AD3d 401 (Dutchess). Application in criminal case for leave to…