People v. Alejandro

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Alejandro

127 A.D.3d 434, 4 N.Y.S.3d 514

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

DecidedApril 7, 2015

Docket14723 2186/08

StatusPublished

This text of 127 A.D.3d 434 (People v. Alejandro) 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. Alejandro, 127 A.D.3d 434, 4 N.Y.S.3d 514 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Gregory Carro, J.), rendered November 28, 2011, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of murder in the second degree, and sentencing him to a term of 23 years to life, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s challenge to the court’s jury instruction concerning the requirement of unanimity is unpreserved. We do not find any mode-of-proceedings error exempt from preservation requirements (see People v Thomas, 50 NY2d 467, 472 [1980]), and we decline to review this unpreserved claim in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we find no basis for reversal, because the court, which followed the Criminal Jury Instructions, sufficiently conveyed to the jury the principle that unanimity was required in order to reject defendant’s extreme emotional disturbance defense. The absence of an exception to the charge did not deprive defendant of effective assistance of counsel, since nothing in the instruction caused defendant any prejudice in light of the charge as a whole (see People v Parra, 58 AD3d 479 [1st Dept 2009], lv denied 12 NY3d 820 [2009]).

Concur — Friedman, J.P., Acosta, Moskowitz, Richter and Kapnick, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Gregory Carro, J.), rendered November 28, 2011, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of murder in the second degree, and sentencing him to a term of 23 years to life, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s challenge to the court’s jury instruction concerning the requirement of unanimity is unpreserved. We do not find any mode-of-proceedings error exempt from preservation requirements (see People v Thomas, 50 NY2d 467, 472 [1980]), and we decline to review this unpreserved claim in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we find no basis for reversal, because the court, which followed the Criminal Jury Instructions, sufficiently conveyed to the jury the principle that unanimity was required in order to reject defendant’s extreme emotional disturbance defense. The absence of an exception to the charge did not deprive defendant of effective assistance of counsel, since nothing in the instruction caused defendant any prejudice in light of the charge as a whole (see People v Parra, 58 AD3d 479 [1st Dept 2009], lv denied 12 NY3d 820 [2009]).

Concur — Friedman, J.P., Acosta, Moskowitz, Richter and Kapnick, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

127 A.D.3d 434, 4 N.Y.S.3d 514, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-alejandro-nyappdiv-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack