Login
  • Bookmark
  • PDF
  • Share
  • CaseIQ

PEOPLE v. MATEO

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department.
Mar 8, 2004
Important Paras
Please sign up to view Important Paras.
DECISION ORDER.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant's unpreserved contention, the Supreme Court's supplemental charge on circumstantial evidence did not deprive him of a fair trial. The supplemental charge conveyed a correct statement of the law ( see People v. Geraci, 85 N.Y.2d 359, 369, cert denied 531 U.S. 1018; People v. Ford, 66 N.Y.2d 428, 442; People v. Benzinger, 36 N.Y.2d 29, 32; People v. Jackson, 261 A.D.2d 636, 637). Moreover, the charge, read in its entirety, was fair, balanced, and not prejudicial to the defendant ( see People v. Mitchell, 129 A.D.2d 589, 590; cf. People v. Brabham, 77 A.D.2d 626).

The sentence imposed was not excessive, nor was it improperly based on crimes for which the defendant was acquitted ( see People v. Matthews, 1 A.D.3d 530; People v. Ferere, 294 A.D.2d 596, 597; People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80; cf. People v. Innis, 288 A.D.2d 236; People v. Santiago, 277 A.D.2d 258, 259).

RITTER, J.P., GOLDSTEIN, CRANE and RIVERA, JJ., concur.