People v. Astin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Astin

115 A.D.2d 482, 496 N.Y.S.2d 363, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 54871

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

DecidedDecember 2, 1985

StatusPublished

This text of 115 A.D.2d 482 (People v. Astin) 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. Astin, 115 A.D.2d 482, 496 N.Y.S.2d 363, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 54871 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Lodato, J.), rendered July 5, 1983, convicting him of two counts of robbery in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Judgment affirmed.

On January 4, 1982, defendant, armed with a shotgun concealed in an umbrella, and an accomplice robbed two individuals in front of a Brooklyn restaurant at about 10:15 p.m. A review of the trial minutes indicates that the main issue concerned identification.

On this appeal, defendant contends that the identification [483]*483charge as a whole was confusing, did not give adequate guidance to the jury concerning its evaluation of the evidence, and impermissibly shifted the burden of proof to defendant. We disagree. A reading of the identification charge as a whole reveals that the jury could gather from the language the correct rules which should be applied in arriving at its determination as to whether the People had proven beyond a reasonable doubt whether defendant had committed the robbery (see, People v Hall, 82 AD2d 838, 839). In view of the overwhelming evidence of defendant’s guilt, any defects in the charge may be characterized as harmless beyond a reasonable doubt (see, People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230; People v Spruill, 103 AD2d 785).

We have reviewed defendant’s remaining contention and find it lacks merit. O’Connor, J. P., Weinstein, Niehoff and Eiber, 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 Supreme Court, Kings County (Lodato, J.), rendered July 5, 1983, convicting him of two counts of robbery in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Judgment affirmed.

On January 4, 1982, defendant, armed with a shotgun concealed in an umbrella, and an accomplice robbed two individuals in front of a Brooklyn restaurant at about 10:15 p.m. A review of the trial minutes indicates that the main issue concerned identification.

On this appeal, defendant contends that the identification [483]*483charge as a whole was confusing, did not give adequate guidance to the jury concerning its evaluation of the evidence, and impermissibly shifted the burden of proof to defendant. We disagree. A reading of the identification charge as a whole reveals that the jury could gather from the language the correct rules which should be applied in arriving at its determination as to whether the People had proven beyond a reasonable doubt whether defendant had committed the robbery (see, People v Hall, 82 AD2d 838, 839). In view of the overwhelming evidence of defendant’s guilt, any defects in the charge may be characterized as harmless beyond a reasonable doubt (see, People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230; People v Spruill, 103 AD2d 785).

We have reviewed defendant’s remaining contention and find it lacks merit. O’Connor, J. P., Weinstein, Niehoff and Eiber, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

115 A.D.2d 482, 496 N.Y.S.2d 363, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 54871, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-astin-nyappdiv-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack