People v. Baker

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Baker

190 A.D.2d 508, 593 N.Y.S.2d 16, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 861

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

DecidedFebruary 2, 1993

StatusPublished

This text of 190 A.D.2d 508 (People v. Baker) 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. Baker, 190 A.D.2d 508, 593 N.Y.S.2d 16, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 861 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

— Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (James Leff, J.), rendered March 19, 1991, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 3 to 6 years, unanimously affirmed.

Since defendant did not object to the language in the court’s charge instructing the jurors that a doubt is reasonable if it is honest, that they were to acquit defendant if their minds were wavering, and that their role was to seek the truth, his argument on appeal that such language diluted the People’s burden of proof is not preserved for review (CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Robinson, 36 NY2d 224). Moreover, since the charge as a whole properly explained the concept of reasonable doubt, a reversal in the interest of justice is not warranted (People v Cazeau, 154 AD2d 611, 612, lv denied 75 NY2d 768). Concur— Murphy, P. J., Wallach, Ross and Asch, JJ.

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

— Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (James Leff, J.), rendered March 19, 1991, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 3 to 6 years, unanimously affirmed.

Since defendant did not object to the language in the court’s charge instructing the jurors that a doubt is reasonable if it is honest, that they were to acquit defendant if their minds were wavering, and that their role was to seek the truth, his argument on appeal that such language diluted the People’s burden of proof is not preserved for review (CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Robinson, 36 NY2d 224). Moreover, since the charge as a whole properly explained the concept of reasonable doubt, a reversal in the interest of justice is not warranted (People v Cazeau, 154 AD2d 611, 612, lv denied 75 NY2d 768). Concur— Murphy, P. J., Wallach, Ross and Asch, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

190 A.D.2d 508, 593 N.Y.S.2d 16, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 861, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-baker-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack