Legal Opinion

People v. Stovall

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Decided June 16, 2000PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant contends that the verdict convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree (Penal Law § 220.39 [1]) and acquitting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree (Penal Law § 220.16 [1]) is repugnant. We disagree. A verdict is repugnant “only in those instances where acquittal on one crime as charged to the jury is conclusive as to a necessary element of the other crime, as charged, for which the guilty verdict was rendered” (People v Tucker, 55 NY2d 1, 7, rearg denied 55 NY2d 1039).…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. People v. TuckerNew York Court of Appeals · 1981
  2. People v. GonzalezAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1989
  3. People v. WhiteAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1991

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. People v. HightowerAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2001
  2. Baim v. EidensAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2001
  3. People v. LittleAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2005
  4. People v. AliceaAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2001

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API