People v. Barrett
| Decision Date | 23 February 1998 |
| Citation | 669 N.Y.S.2d 244,247 A.D.2d 626 |
| Parties | 1998 N.Y. Slip Op. 1648 The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Anthony BARRETT, a/k/a Anthony W. Barrett, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Susan B. Marhoffer, White Plains, for appellant.
Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn (Roseann B. MacKechnie and Diane R. Eisner, of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Mastro, J.), rendered November 6, 1995, convicting him of robbery in the first degree (two counts) and burglary in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
"[W]here a defendant's trial testimony offers one version of the events in question, and his prior remark to a police officer suggests a contrary view of those events, the jury is entitled to hear the previous statement so that it may fully assess the witness' credibility" (People v. Wise, 46 N.Y.2d 321, 327-328, 413 N.Y.S.2d 334, 385 N.E.2d 1262). In the instant case, the statement by the defendant that was suppressed in his first trial was properly admitted.
Further, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see, People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620, 467 N.Y.S.2d 349, 454 N.E.2d 932), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Contrary to the defendant's contention, the People established the element of displaying what appeared to be a handgun during the course of the crime (see, Penal Law § 160.15). "The element of display is satisfied when the evidence establishes that the defendant consciously displayed something that could reasonably be perceived as a firearm, with the intent of taking property, and the victim actually perceived the display * * * Thus, even a hand consciously concealed in clothing may suffice, if under all the circumstances the defendant's conduct could reasonably lead the victim to believe that a gun is being used during the robbery" (People v. Washington, 229 A.D.2d 601, 602, 646 N.Y.S.2d 39; see, People v. Lopez, 73 N.Y.2d 214, 220, 538 N.Y.S.2d 788, 535 N.E.2d 1328; People v. Baskerville, 60 N.Y.2d 374, 381, 469 N.Y.S.2d 646, 457 N.E.2d 752). 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[5] ).
The defendant's remaining contentions lack merit.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rudenko v Costello
... ... The petition for a writ of habeas corpus is denied for the reasons stated in the opinion of the Appellate Division, People v. Gandarilla, 244 A.D.2d 500, 665 N.Y.S.2d 905 (2d Dep't 1997), and the memorandum of law filed by the District Attorney. Gandarilla v. Artuz, ... ...
-
Rudenko v. Costello
... ... The petition for a writ of habeas corpus is denied for the reasons stated in the opinion of the Appellate Division, People v. Gandarilla, 244 A.D.2d 500, 665 N.Y.S.2d 905 (2d Dep't 1997), and the memorandum of law filed by the District Attorney ... ... ...
-
People v. Motayne, 2012-00555
...60 N.Y.2d 374, 381, 469 N.Y.S.2d 646, 457 N.E.2d 752 ; People v. Sancho, 124 A.D.3d 806, 998 N.Y.S.2d 660 ; People v. Barrett, 247 A.D.2d 626, 669 N.Y.S.2d 244 ; People v. Moore, 134 A.D.2d 530, 521 N.Y.S.2d 297 ). Moreover, upon our independent review pursuant to CPL 470.15(5), we are sati......
-
People v. Jones
...sufficient to establish the element of displaying what appeared to be a handgun during the course of the crime ( see People v. Barrett, 247 A.D.2d 626, 626–627, 669 N.Y.S.2d 244;People v. Moore, 134 A.D.2d 530, 531, 521 N.Y.S.2d 297), and to establish that, with respect to count two of the ......