Legal Opinion

People v. Whitfield

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

Decided February 2, 1990PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the Court

*923Evidence that defendant made contradictory statements to police was insufficient to prove to a moral certainty that defendant knew the property was stolen (see, People v Rolland, 128 AD2d 650). The People failed to request an instruction on the inference arising from the recent and exclusive possession of the fruits of a crime and thus, the jury could not consider the inference in arriving at its verdict (People v Felder, 132 AD2d 705; People v Hunt, 112 AD2d 781). In the absence of the inference, the proof was insufficient to establish that defendant knew the photography equipment was…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. People v. EdwardsAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1984
  2. People v. HuntAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1985
  3. People v. FelderAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1987
  4. People v. RollandAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1987

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. People v. ConcepcionAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1990

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

Powered by the Exa API