People v. Albino

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Albino

74 A.D.2d 831, 425 N.Y.S.2d 172, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10583

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

DecidedMarch 3, 1980

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 74 A.D.2d 831 (People v. Albino) 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. Albino, 74 A.D.2d 831, 425 N.Y.S.2d 172, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10583 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered July 28, 1978, convicting him of assault in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. Judgment affirmed. Defendant’s claim that the court’s charge to the jury that "It is a general rule that a person’s actions reveal an expression of his mind. A person is presumed to intend the natural consequences of his acts”, violates the rule set forth in Sandstrom v Montana (442 US 510), is without merit, because a reading of the entire charge discloses that the matter of intent was left for the jury to decide based upon all of the evidence. This portion of the charge was made in connection with the attempted murder counts of which defendant was found not guilty. Defendant’s guilt with respect to assault in the first degree was established beyond a reasonable doubt. Gibbons, J. P., Rabin, Gulotta and Cohalan, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered July 28, 1978, convicting him of assault in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. Judgment affirmed. Defendant’s claim that the court’s charge to the jury that "It is a general rule that a person’s actions reveal an expression of his mind. A person is presumed to intend the natural consequences of his acts”, violates the rule set forth in Sandstrom v Montana (442 US 510), is without merit, because a reading of the entire charge discloses that the matter of intent was left for the jury to decide based upon all of the evidence. This portion of the charge was made in connection with the attempted murder counts of which defendant was found not guilty. Defendant’s guilt with respect to assault in the first degree was established beyond a reasonable doubt. Gibbons, J. P., Rabin, Gulotta and Cohalan, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

74 A.D.2d 831, 425 N.Y.S.2d 172, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10583, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-albino-nyappdiv-1980.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack