People v. Actie

215 A.D.2d 570, 627 N.Y.S.2d 62, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5084
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMay 15, 1995
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 215 A.D.2d 570 (People v. Actie) 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 v. Actie, 215 A.D.2d 570, 627 N.Y.S.2d 62, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5084 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Mastro, J.), rendered February 11, 1993, convicting him of murder in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

[571]*571Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the trial court did not err in admitting the testimony regarding the defendant’s previous assault and threat against the victim. The testimony was relevant to the defendant’s motive and intent (see, People v Carver, 183 AD2d 907; People v Hutchinson, 179 AD2d 679, 680).

The defendant’s contention that he is entitled to a new trial because of the trial court’s improper charge to the jury on the presumption of innocence is without merit. The trial court properly instructed the jury in detail that the People had the burden of proving each and every element of the crime charged beyond a reasonable doubt and that the presumption of innocence only ceases if and when the jury determines that the defendant’s guilt was established beyond a reasonable doubt. Although it would have been more prudent for the trial court to instruct the jury that a defendant is presumed innocent "unless the contrary is proved”, rather than "until the contrary is proved” (see, 1 CJI[NY] 6.10, at 246), the charge, considered as a whole, conveyed the proper standards (see, People v Medina, 178 AD2d 177).

The defendant’s remaining contentions, including these raised in his supplemental pro se brief, are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Miller, J. P., Thompson, Pizzuto and Santucci, JJ., concur.

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

Related

People v. Quinn
210 A.D.3d 1284 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2022)
People v. David
266 A.D.2d 228 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1999)
People v. Henderson
259 A.D.2d 495 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1999)
People v. Custodio
243 A.D.2d 576 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1997)
People v. Cahill
220 A.D.2d 608 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1995)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
215 A.D.2d 570, 627 N.Y.S.2d 62, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5084, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-actie-nyappdiv-1995.