People v. Baucom

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Baucom

220 A.D.2d 678, 632 N.Y.S.2d 975, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10519

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

DecidedOctober 23, 1995

StatusPublished

This text of 220 A.D.2d 678 (People v. Baucom) 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. Baucom, 220 A.D.2d 678, 632 N.Y.S.2d 975, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10519 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Firetog, J.), rendered May 17, 1994, convicting him of robbery in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant has not preserved for appellate review his contention that he was denied a fair trial by the court’s reasonable doubt charge (see, CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Bynum, 70 NY2d 858; People v Brown, 204 AD2d 734). In any event, a review of the charge demonstrates that it adequately illustrated the concept of reasonable doubt to the jury (see, People v Canty, 60 NY2d 830; People v Russell, 266 NY 147; People v Rosa, 162 AD2d 257; see also, 1 CJI[NY] 3.06, 3.07, 6.20). Balletta, J. P., Thompson, Ritter and Florio, JJ., concur.

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

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Firetog, J.), rendered May 17, 1994, convicting him of robbery in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant has not preserved for appellate review his contention that he was denied a fair trial by the court’s reasonable doubt charge (see, CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Bynum, 70 NY2d 858; People v Brown, 204 AD2d 734). In any event, a review of the charge demonstrates that it adequately illustrated the concept of reasonable doubt to the jury (see, People v Canty, 60 NY2d 830; People v Russell, 266 NY 147; People v Rosa, 162 AD2d 257; see also, 1 CJI[NY] 3.06, 3.07, 6.20). Balletta, J. P., Thompson, Ritter and Florio, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

220 A.D.2d 678, 632 N.Y.S.2d 975, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10519, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-baucom-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack