People v. Ciola
| Decision Date | 30 March 1988 |
| Citation | 71 N.Y.2d 893,527 N.Y.S.2d 1003 |
| Parties | , 523 N.E.2d 310 People v. Ciola (Anthony) |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
To continue reading
Request your trial
8 cases
-
People v. Maull
... ... The People presented testimony establishing that defendant possessed a loaded firearm and intentionally fired it at the victim (see e.g. People v. Gonzalez, 193 A.D.2d 360, 361, 597 N.Y.S.2d 44 [1st Dept. 1993] ; People v. Ciola, 136 A.D.2d 557, 557, 523 N.Y.S.2d 553 [2d Dept. 1988], lv denied 71 N.Y.2d 893, 527 N.Y.S.2d 1003, 523 N.E.2d 310 [1988] ).Furthermore, viewing the evidence in light of the elements of the crimes as charged to the jury (see People v. Danielson, 9 N.Y.3d 342, 349, 849 N.Y.S.2d 480, 880 N.E.2d 1 ... ...
-
People v. Butler
... ... Two cartridge cases were found at the scene, and the People's expert testified that they came from one firearm. That evidence is sufficient to establish defendant's identity and the operability of the firearm (see 140 A.D.3d 1611 People v. Ciola, 136 A.D.2d 557, 557, 523 N.Y.S.2d 553, lv. denied 71 N.Y.2d 893, 527 N.Y.S.2d 1003, 523 N.E.2d 310 ). Although there were minor inconsistencies in the testimony of the eyewitnesses, those inconsistencies do not render their testimony incredible as a matter of law (see People v. Harris, 56 A.D.3d ... ...
-
People v. Samba
... ... denied76 N.Y.2d 738, 558 N.Y.S.2d 900, 557 N.E.2d 1196 [1990] [witnesses heard a [97 A.D.3d 415]noise like the firing of a gun]; Hechavarria, 158 A.D.2d at 423425, 551 N.Y.S.2d 922 [the defendant was seen holding a gun and there was the sound of gunfire]; People v. Ciola, 136 A.D.2d 557, 523 N.Y.S.2d 553 [1988],lv. denied71 N.Y.2d 893, 527 N.Y.S.2d 1003, 523 N.E.2d 310 [1988] [witnesses saw and heard the defendant fire the gun] ). Furthermore, no expert testimony is required when the matter to be determined lies within the ken of an ordinary juror ( see Kulak v ... ...
-
People v. Smith
... ... The People's delay in complying with the provisions of CPL 240.45 mandates reversal only when the delay substantially prejudices defendant (see, People v. Ranghelle, 69 N.Y.2d 56, 63, 511 N.Y.S.2d 580, 503 N.E.2d 1011; People v. Ciola, 136 A.D.2d 557, 558, 523 N.Y.S.2d 553 lv. denied, 71 N.Y.2d 893, 527 N.Y.S.2d 1003, 523 N.E.2d 310). Because defendant was able to inspect the statements before ... cross-examination, and because he did not request an adjournment after receiving the statements, we conclude that defendant was ... ...
Request a trial to view additional results