People v. Andujar

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Andujar

228 A.D.2d 194, 643 N.Y.2d 341, 643 N.Y.S.2d 341, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6367

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

DecidedJune 6, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 228 A.D.2d 194 (People v. Andujar) 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. Andujar, 228 A.D.2d 194, 643 N.Y.2d 341, 643 N.Y.S.2d 341, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6367 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

Defendant’s claim that the trial court erred in failing to specifically charge the jury, when it reported a partial verdict, "to resume its deliberation upon the entire case”, as required by CPL 310.70 (1) (b) (ii), is unpreserved for appellate review, in that defendant failed to object when the instruction was given and this error does not fall within the narrow class of error which need not be preserved by timely objection (People v Rios, 215 AD2d 509, lv denied 86 NY2d 801; see, People v Agramante, 87 NY2d 765, 767). We decline to review the claim in the interest of justice. Were we to do so, we would find that there was no error as the court’s charge did not limit the scope of the jury’s deliberations and the jury was instructed to deliberate on the "case”. Concur—Milonas, J. P., Rosenberger, Ross and Tom, JJ.

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

Defendant’s claim that the trial court erred in failing to specifically charge the jury, when it reported a partial verdict, "to resume its deliberation upon the entire case”, as required by CPL 310.70 (1) (b) (ii), is unpreserved for appellate review, in that defendant failed to object when the instruction was given and this error does not fall within the narrow class of error which need not be preserved by timely objection (People v Rios, 215 AD2d 509, lv denied 86 NY2d 801; see, People v Agramante, 87 NY2d 765, 767). We decline to review the claim in the interest of justice. Were we to do so, we would find that there was no error as the court’s charge did not limit the scope of the jury’s deliberations and the jury was instructed to deliberate on the "case”. Concur—Milonas, J. P., Rosenberger, Ross and Tom, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

228 A.D.2d 194, 643 N.Y.2d 341, 643 N.Y.S.2d 341, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6367, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-andujar-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack