Judgment affirmed and case remitted to the Supreme Court, Queens County, for further proceedings pursuant to CPL 460.50 (subd 5).
The trial court did not err in charging the jury that it could infer defendant's guilt from his recent and exclusive possession of the fruits of the crime, if such possession was unexplained or falsely explained. Recent and exclusive possession is not required to be proved by direct evidence; circumstantial evidence of such possession suffices...
Let's get started
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.
- Updated daily.
- Uncompromising quality.
- Complete, Accurate, Current.
