![]() |
|
|
|
| | | |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
1
.
OPINION
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
EVIDENCE OFFICERS CAR NY2D VEHICLE JURY POSSESSION POLICE INFERENCE STOLEN PROPERTY GUILT LIGHTS FLIGHT APPELLANT EXCLUSIVE POSSESSION JUDGE CRIMES CONSENT INFERRING CONSCIOUSNESS FACTS YAZUM DISBELIEF SUPRA CHARGES CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE LAW APPELLATE DIVISION INSUFFICIENT |
2 No. 96
The People &c.,
Respondent,
v.
Carlos Cintron,
Appellant.
_________________________________________________________________
2000 NY Int. 113
October 24, 2000
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication
in the New York Reports.
Joshua M. Levine, for appellant.
Sabine Browne, for respondent.
_________________________________________________________________
WESLEY
, J.:
On the evening of January 12, 1997, two police officers parked in an
unmarked car on a one-way street in Brooklyn spotted defendant Carlos
Cintron when he drove past them in a green 1990 Acura Legend and
sounded its horn. When the officers entered the license plate number
into their police vehicle's computer console, they discovered that the
insurance on the car had been suspended. The officers then decided to
follow the car.
After defendant went through a red light at an intersection, forcing
pedestrians to jump out of the way, the officers turned on their
flashing lights and siren. Defendant did not stop but instead
accelerated, leading the officers on a high-speed car chase during
which he wove in and out of traffic and executed various evasive
maneuvers. He eventually crashed the vehicle into a guardrail. When
the officers approached, defendant jumped from the car and ran. A
foot-chase ensued and the officers ultimately apprehended defendant.
The officers later learned that the car had been stolen three days
earlier. Defendant testified at trial that a friend had let him drive
the car, that he drove away at high speed because he was fleeing from
a man with a gun, and that he did not hear the police siren or see the
flashing lights.
The court did not instruct the jury either on the inference arising
from the recent and exclusive possession of stolen property (see, 1
SNIPPETS:
|
| | | |