People v. Arroyo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Arroyo

238 A.D.2d 142, 655 N.Y.S.2d 947, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3103

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

DecidedApril 3, 1997

StatusPublished

This text of 238 A.D.2d 142 (People v. Arroyo) 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. Arroyo, 238 A.D.2d 142, 655 N.Y.S.2d 947, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3103 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Lawrence Tonetti, J.), rendered February 16, 1995, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, and unlawful possession of marihuana, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 3 to 6 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant has not preserved his present challenges to portions of the court’s charge which made reference to the jury’s function in determining truth and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. Were we to review them, we would find that the charge, taken as a whole, properly explained the People’s burden of proving defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt (see, People v Brown, 220 AD2d 250, lv denied 87 NY2d 898; People v Pena, 196 AD2d 753, lv denied 82 NY2d 900). Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Rubin, Williams and Andrias, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Lawrence Tonetti, J.), rendered February 16, 1995, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, and unlawful possession of marihuana, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 3 to 6 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant has not preserved his present challenges to portions of the court’s charge which made reference to the jury’s function in determining truth and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. Were we to review them, we would find that the charge, taken as a whole, properly explained the People’s burden of proving defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt (see, People v Brown, 220 AD2d 250, lv denied 87 NY2d 898; People v Pena, 196 AD2d 753, lv denied 82 NY2d 900). Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Rubin, Williams and Andrias, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

238 A.D.2d 142, 655 N.Y.S.2d 947, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3103, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-arroyo-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack