People v. Adams

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Adams

137 A.D.2d 538, 523 N.Y.S.2d 984, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 824

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

DecidedFebruary 1, 1988

StatusPublished

This text of 137 A.D.2d 538 (People v. Adams) 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. Adams, 137 A.D.2d 538, 523 N.Y.S.2d 984, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 824 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Murray, J.), rendered March 8, 1983, convicting him of manslaughter in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

[539]*539Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant contends that the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury that the People were required to disprove the defense of justification beyond a reasonable doubt. The defendant, however, failed to object to the court’s charge on this ground, and, therefore, this claim has not been preserved for appellate review (see, GPL 470.05 [2]; People v Thomas, 50 NY2d 467; People v Richburg, 109 AD2d 899).

In any event, the charge, when viewed as a whole, adequately conveyed the appropriate law to the jury and did not deprive the defendant of a fair trial (see, People v Woods, 41 NY2d 279; People v Richburg, supra). Bracken, J. P., Kunzeman, Spatt and Sullivan, 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 (Murray, J.), rendered March 8, 1983, convicting him of manslaughter in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

[539]*539Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant contends that the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury that the People were required to disprove the defense of justification beyond a reasonable doubt. The defendant, however, failed to object to the court’s charge on this ground, and, therefore, this claim has not been preserved for appellate review (see, GPL 470.05 [2]; People v Thomas, 50 NY2d 467; People v Richburg, 109 AD2d 899).

In any event, the charge, when viewed as a whole, adequately conveyed the appropriate law to the jury and did not deprive the defendant of a fair trial (see, People v Woods, 41 NY2d 279; People v Richburg, supra). Bracken, J. P., Kunzeman, Spatt and Sullivan, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

137 A.D.2d 538, 523 N.Y.S.2d 984, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 824, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-adams-nyappdiv-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack