 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | | |
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
1
.
OPINION
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
APPELLANT LARCENY COURT ROGER AFFIRM EVIDENCE DISMISSALS FALSE STATEMENT INVESTORS FALSE PRETENSES RESPONDENT APPELLATE DIVISION CONCEALMENTS DONOVAN SALA FIRST MERIDIAN CONVICTION CHARGE PENAL LAW OMISSIONS MATERIAL FACT JURY NY2D DEFRAUD LEGALLY SUFFICIENT GRAND LARCENY INSUFFICIENT MOTIONS REPRESENTATION |
3 No. 106
The People &c.,
Respondent,
v.
Roger C. Sala,
Appellant.
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
3 No. 1073 No. 108
The People &c.,
The People &c., Respondent,
Respondent,
v.
v.
_________________________________________________________________
2000 NY Int. 105
October 17, 2000
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication
in the New York Reports.
v. John W. Donovan,Roger V. Sala, Appellant. Appellant.
--------------------------------------------------------------- Case
No. 106: Jeffrey S. Berkun, for appellant.
Robin A. Forshaw, for respondent.
New York State Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, amicus curiæ.
Case No. 107: Daniel G. Moriarty, for appellant.
Robin A. Forshaw, for respondent.
New York State Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, amicus curiæ.
Case No. 108: Theresa M. Suozzi, for appellant.
Robin A. Forshaw, for respondent.
New York State Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, amicus curiæ.
_________________________________________________________________
ROSENBLATT
, J.:
As former principals of First Meridian Planning Corporation,
defendants were convicted of various crimes arising out of a scheme to
defraud investors. All defendants challenge the legal sufficiency of
the evidence as to fraudulent intent -- a necessary element in all of
SNIPPETS:
|
|
|
| | | |
|
|
