Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Bakary MARIKO, Defendant-Appellant.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Mary McGowan Davis, J.), rendered March 17, 1998, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of five counts of criminal possession of a forged instrument in the second degree and one count of attempted grand larceny in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to six concurrent terms of 2 to 4 years, unanimously affirmed.
The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence. There was ample evidence from which the jury could have reasonably inferred defendant's accessorial liability, including defendant's presence in the vehicle from which the forged instruments were recovered and his possession of bank records linked to the account of one of the payees of the those instruments. Moreover, there were actions and statements by defendant evincing a consciousness of guilt. We conclude that the jury properly rejected any innocent explanations for this wealth of evidence.
The court properly admitted into evidence information concerning the deposit of other checks not mentioned in the indictment, since this evidence was sufficiently connected to defendant and was probative of defendant's intent (see, People v. Alvino, 71 N.Y.2d 233, 525 N.Y.S.2d 7, 519 N.E.2d 808).
Defendant's contention concerning the lack of jury instructions relating to the annotated verdict sheet (see, CPL 310.20[2] ) requires preservation (People v. Wheeler, 257 A.D.2d 673, 685 N.Y.S.2d 94 lv. denied 93 N.Y.2d 930, 693 N.Y.S.2d 514, 715 N.E.2d 517), and we decline to review this unpreserved claim in the interest of justice. Were we to review this claim, we would find no possibility of prejudice to defendant in light of the court's instructions differentiating the counts.
MEMORANDUM DECISION.
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Decided: December 16, 1999
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)