People of State of New York v. Outlaw

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People of State of New York v. Outlaw

172 A.D.2d 697

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedApril 15, 1991

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 172 A.D.2d 697 (People of State of New York v. Outlaw) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People of State of New York v. Outlaw, 172 A.D.2d 697 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Douglass, J.), rendered July 6, 1989, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, robbery in the second degree, and grand larceny in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

By failing to object to the trial court’s marshaling of the evidence in its charge to the jury, the defendant failed to preserve for appellate review the issue of whether that marshaling was done in an unfair or unbalanced manner (see, People v McDonald, 144 AD2d 701; People v McCright, 107 AD2d 766). In any event, reversal is unwarranted, as, under the circumstances of this case, any deficiency did not deny the defendant a fair trial (see, People v Saunders, 64 NY2d 665; see also, People v Gray, 144 AD2d 483; People v McDonald, supra; People v McCright, supra; People v Little, 98 AD2d 752, affd 62 NY2d 1020). Thompson, J. P., Brown, Miller and O’Brien, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Douglass, J.), rendered July 6, 1989, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, robbery in the second degree, and grand larceny in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

By failing to object to the trial court’s marshaling of the evidence in its charge to the jury, the defendant failed to preserve for appellate review the issue of whether that marshaling was done in an unfair or unbalanced manner (see, People v McDonald, 144 AD2d 701; People v McCright, 107 AD2d 766). In any event, reversal is unwarranted, as, under the circumstances of this case, any deficiency did not deny the defendant a fair trial (see, People v Saunders, 64 NY2d 665; see also, People v Gray, 144 AD2d 483; People v McDonald, supra; People v McCright, supra; People v Little, 98 AD2d 752, affd 62 NY2d 1020). Thompson, J. P., Brown, Miller and O’Brien, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

172 A.D.2d 697, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-of-state-of-new-york-v-outlaw-nyappdiv-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack