People v. Antommarchi

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Antommarchi

176 A.D.2d 104, 573 N.Y.S.2d 285, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11689

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

DecidedSeptember 5, 1991

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 176 A.D.2d 104 (People v. Antommarchi) 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. Antommarchi, 176 A.D.2d 104, 573 N.Y.S.2d 285, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11689 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard Failla, J.), rendered January 10, 1989, convicting defendant after a jury trial of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him to an indeterminate term of imprisonment of five to ten years, unanimously affirmed.

Neither reference as a "reasonable person” (see, People v Flecha, 161 AD2d 116, lv denied 76 NY2d 856) nor the instruction that a reasonable doubt is "a doubt for which a juror can give a reason if he or she is called upon to do so in the jury room”, was reversible error. (See, People v Jackson, 155 AD2d 329, affd 76 NY2d 908.) Defendant’s claim that the Allen charge was unbalanced because it unfairly singled out those jurors who were then holding a doubt as to guilt, is unpreserved.

We have considered defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Ellerin, Ross and Smith, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard Failla, J.), rendered January 10, 1989, convicting defendant after a jury trial of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him to an indeterminate term of imprisonment of five to ten years, unanimously affirmed.

Neither reference as a "reasonable person” (see, People v Flecha, 161 AD2d 116, lv denied 76 NY2d 856) nor the instruction that a reasonable doubt is "a doubt for which a juror can give a reason if he or she is called upon to do so in the jury room”, was reversible error. (See, People v Jackson, 155 AD2d 329, affd 76 NY2d 908.) Defendant’s claim that the Allen charge was unbalanced because it unfairly singled out those jurors who were then holding a doubt as to guilt, is unpreserved.

We have considered defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Ellerin, Ross and Smith, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

176 A.D.2d 104, 573 N.Y.S.2d 285, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11689, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-antommarchi-nyappdiv-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack