People v. Ashenden

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Ashenden

92 A.D.2d 898, 460 N.Y.S.2d 99, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 17295

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

DecidedMarch 14, 1983

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 92 A.D.2d 898 (People v. Ashenden) 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. Ashenden, 92 A.D.2d 898, 460 N.Y.S.2d 99, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 17295 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1983).

Pincite

Opinion

— Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the County [899]*899Court, Suffolk County (Tanenbaum, J.), rendered April 25, 1982, convicting him of sexual abuse in the first degree and sexual abuse in the third degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. Judgment affirmed. After the jury reported it was deadlocked, the trial court gave an Allen-type charge (see Allen v United States, 164 US 492), and asked the jury to attempt to resolve its differences and agree on a verdict if they could. Defendant contends that this charge and a subsequent charge were coercive and unbalanced since they failed to remind the jurors that they should not surrender their conscientiously held beliefs (see People v Ali, 65 AD2d 513, .514, affd 47 NY2d 920). While the approach used by the trial court was not ideal, it did instruct the jury that it should not “attempt to reach some decision simply to reach a decision which you felt was inappropriate”. In addition, upon request by defense counsel, the court informed the jury that although it should attempt to reach a verdict, if it could not do so, to please report that circumstance as well. Considering the charge as a whole, we do not regard it as coercive (see People v Pagan, 45 NY2d 725). We have considered defendant’s other contentions and find them to be without merit. Mollen, P. J., Lazer, Thompson and Gulotta, 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 County [899]*899Court, Suffolk County (Tanenbaum, J.), rendered April 25, 1982, convicting him of sexual abuse in the first degree and sexual abuse in the third degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. Judgment affirmed. After the jury reported it was deadlocked, the trial court gave an Allen-type charge (see Allen v United States, 164 US 492), and asked the jury to attempt to resolve its differences and agree on a verdict if they could. Defendant contends that this charge and a subsequent charge were coercive and unbalanced since they failed to remind the jurors that they should not surrender their conscientiously held beliefs (see People v Ali, 65 AD2d 513, .514, affd 47 NY2d 920). While the approach used by the trial court was not ideal, it did instruct the jury that it should not “attempt to reach some decision simply to reach a decision which you felt was inappropriate”. In addition, upon request by defense counsel, the court informed the jury that although it should attempt to reach a verdict, if it could not do so, to please report that circumstance as well. Considering the charge as a whole, we do not regard it as coercive (see People v Pagan, 45 NY2d 725). We have considered defendant’s other contentions and find them to be without merit. Mollen, P. J., Lazer, Thompson and Gulotta, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

92 A.D.2d 898, 460 N.Y.S.2d 99, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 17295, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-ashenden-nyappdiv-1983.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack