AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Advocates
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Advocates
Judges

THE PEOPLE, ETC., respondent, v. MICHAEL JAMES, appellant.

DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant moved to set aside the verdict based on a claim of newly-discovered evidence. The County Court correctly denied that motion without a hearing (see CPL 330.40; People v. Johnson, 208 A.D.2d 562; People v. Lopez, 104 A.D.2d 904). The defendant failed to show that the supposedly new evidence could not have been discovered earlier in the exercise of reasonable diligence (see CPL 330.30; People v. Davis, 43 N.Y.2d 17; People v. Pacheco, 293 A.D.2d 629). Further, the defendant failed to show that had the evidence in question been introduced at trial it would have resulted in a different verdict (see e.g. People v. Johnson, supra; People v. Gomezgil, 135 A.D.2d 561).

The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit.

PRUDENTI, P.J., ALTMAN, FRIEDMANN and RIVERA, JJ., concur.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

PEOPLE v. JAMES
(Nov 12, 2002)