Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department · 2021 · Evidence
EvidenceEvidencecriminal appealaffirmedsentence not excessiveFirst Departmentno substantive analysis
Facts
The opinion provides no substantive facts about the underlying offense, trial evidence, or evidentiary issue. It identifies only that the case is a criminal prosecution brought by the People against Arthur Meredith. The appeal was taken from a judgment rendered in Supreme Court, Bronx County. The court also noted that it found the sentence not excessive.
Issue
Whether the judgment of conviction from Supreme Court, Bronx County, should be reversed or modified on appeal, including on the ground that the sentence was excessive.
Rule
When the Appellate Division states that, after due deliberation, it finds the sentence not excessive and affirms the judgment, the operative rule from the opinion is simply that the judgment stands and the sentence will not be disturbed as excessive on this record.
🔒
See the holding & full analysis
Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.
The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case
One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.
In a criminal appeal from Kings County, the intermediate appellate court issued a one-paragraph order stating that the case had been argued, due deliberation had been had, the sentence was not excessive, and the judgment was affirmed. In a later prosecution in Albany, defense counsel cites that order as establishing a rule that a certain kind of eyewitness testimony is inadmissible.
How should the Albany trial court treat the cited order?
Explanation. The majority text supports only a narrow proposition: after argument and deliberation, the appellate court affirmed and found the sentence not excessive. Because the opinion gives no substantive discussion of evidence or other legal issues, no specific evidentiary doctrine can be extracted from it. (Derived from People v. Meredith (n.d.).)