Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

People v. Astwood

NEW YORK SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT


March 2, 2010

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,
v.
JONATHAN ASTWOOD, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Robert Stolz, J.), rendered July 30, 2007, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (two counts),criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree and criminal possession of marijuana in the second degree, and sentencing him to an aggregate term of 5 years, unanimously affirmed.

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Friedman, J.P., Moskowitz, Renwick, Freedman, RomÁn, JJ.

2781/06

The court properly admitted, with limiting instructions, a series of items of physical evidence recovered in close temporal and spatial proximity to defendant's arrest that suggested uncharged criminal activity. This evidence was closely connected to the charged crimes, supported the unlawful intent element of the second-degree weapon charges (see People v Coluccio, 170 AD2d 523, 524 [1991], lv denied 77 NY2d 993 [1991]), and tended to complete the narrative of events leading to defendant's arrest (see People v Till, 87 NY2d 835, 837 [1995]). Contrary to defendant's claim that the disputed evidence was unnecessary to establish intent, the presumption of unlawful intent in Penal Law § 265.15(4) is a permissive inference that the jury may reject. Moreover, the People "were not bound to stop after presenting minimum evidence" (People v Alvino, 71 NY2d 233, 245 [1987]). In any event, any error in admitting the challenged evidence was harmless (see People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230 [1975]). We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

20100302

© 1992-2010 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.