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. Charles STENSON, Defendant-Appellant.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard D. Carruthers, J.), rendered March 26, 2008, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of burglary in the second degree and grand larceny in the fourth degree, and sentencing him to an aggregate term of 8 years, unanimously affirmed.
The court properly admitted testimony that defendant possessed credit cards that had been last seen in the premises where the burglary occurred, even though a motion court had dismissed the counts of the indictment relating to the cards. This evidence clearly linked defendant to the burglary and, contrary to defendant's argument, we find nothing in People v. Resek, 3 N.Y.3d 385, 787 N.Y.S.2d 683, 821 N.E.2d 108 [2004] to suggest that otherwise admissible uncharged crimes evidence is necessarily rendered inadmissible by a dismissal of charges relating to the conduct at issue. Here, the counts relating to the credit cards were dismissed, with leave to re-present, due to technical gaps in the proof before the grand jury. The dismissal cannot be viewed as “clearing” defendant of possessing the credit cards (compare Resek, 3 N.Y.3d at 390, 787 N.Y.S.2d 683, 821 N.E.2d 108) or creating any unfairness about using that possession as proper uncharged crimes evidence. Defendant's argument that the trial jury should have been told about the dismissal is unpreserved and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we likewise reject it on the merits.
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 01, 2009
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)