The court's finding was based on legally sufficient evidence. Although the victim was unable to identify appellant as the person who took her cell phone, and although Family Court Act § 343.2 requires that the testimony of an accomplice be corroborated, the record supports the court's implicit finding that the identifying witness was not an accomplice within the meaning of the statute. The evidence did not establish that the witness was an accomplice as a matter of law...
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.
