People v. Dupree
| Decision Date | 15 April 1985 |
| Citation | 487 N.Y.S.2d 847,110 A.D.2d 777 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Peter DUPREE, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
David R. Walton, New York, for appellant.
Elizabeth Holtzman, Dist. Atty., Brooklyn (Barbara D. Underwood and Roseann B. Mackechnie, Brooklyn, of counsel; Stacy M. Leopold, Oceanside on brief), for respondent.
Before LAZER, J.P., and GIBBONS, O'CONNOR and WEINSTEIN, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
Appeals by defendant from two judgments of the Supreme Court, Kings County, both rendered November 30, 1982, convicting him of robbery in the first degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon jury verdicts, and imposing sentences.
Judgments affirmed.
The defendant was arrested by two undercover police officers when he pulled out a loaded handgun as he approached the corner of Fifth Avenue and St. John's Place in Brooklyn while the officers were exiting their car. During their ensuing search of a large garbage bag which the defendant was carrying, the officers discovered a leather jacket, leather boots, and a shopping bag with the name "Lee Leather Shops" on it. A worker at the Lee shop subsequently identified the defendant as one of two men who had robbed the leather goods store at gunpoint two days earlier and the clothing as the kind of merchandise as had been taken from the store. He also stated that the gun which was seized looked "very much like the gun that was used" during the robbery and that "[a]s far as I can tell * * * it's the same". Thereafter defendant was indicted for criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree. He also was separately indicted on various charges arising out of the robbery of the Lee store, together with codefendant Philip Santos.
Prior to the commencement of the trial with respect to the charges arising out of the robbery, the defendant moved to preclude the People from introducing into evidence the gun which he possessed at the time of his arrest and which resulted in his prior conviction on the weapons possession charge. The trial court determined that the probative value of the gun on the issue of defendant's identity as one of the robbers outweighed its potential for prejudice and, accordingly, ruled that the gun was admissible. It precluded the People from adducing any testimony that the gun was loaded and operable, however, or that the defendant had been tried and convicted of criminal possession of a weapon. This was not an...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Noriega
...evidence of crimes allegedly committed by defendant after the crime for which he or she is tried. See, e.g., People v. Dupree, 110 A.D.2d 777, 487 N.Y.S.2d 847 (2d Dept., 1985); People v. Powell, 107 A.D.2d 718, 484 N.Y.S.2d 75 (2d Dept., 1985); People v. Gines, 36 N.Y.2d 932, 373 N.Y.S.2d ......
-
People v. Hernandez
... ... Furthermore, the trial court struck a proper balance between the probative value of the evidence and its potential for prejudice by issuing appropriate instructions to the jury limiting consideration of this testimony to the issue of motive and intent (see, People ... v. Dupree, 110 A.D.2d 777, 778, 487 N.Y.S.2d 847) ... With respect to the defendant's claim that the complainant's testimony was improperly bolstered by the testimony of the arresting officer, we find that the defendant failed to preserve the alleged error by timely objecting thereto (see, ... ...
-
People v. Sanders
...required (see, People v. Marrero, 110 A.D.2d 785, 487 N.Y.S.2d 853; People v. Martin, 112 A.D.2d 387, 491 N.Y.S.2d 843; People v. Dupree, 110 A.D.2d 777, 487 N.Y.S.2d 847). Our review of the record discloses that the defendant's remaining contention is without ...
- People v. Dawkins