People v. Beaver

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Beaver

56 A.D.2d 891, 392 N.Y.S.2d 676, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11283

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

DecidedMarch 21, 1977

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 56 A.D.2d 891 (People v. Beaver) 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. Beaver, 56 A.D.2d 891, 392 N.Y.S.2d 676, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11283 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, rendered September 26, 1975, convicting him of [892]*892burglary in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. Judgment reversed, on the law, and new trial ordered. The findings of fact are affirmed. Upon the trial the defendant, who was indicted for burglary in the third degree, requested the court to submit to the jury the lesser included offenses of attempted burglary in the third degree and criminal trespass. Although the prosecutor agreed to this request, the trial court refused to do so, holding that, as a matter of law, the defendant either was guilty of burglary in the third degree or was not guilty of anything. This was error, as the District Attorney concedes. It may not be said on the record presented that no reasonable view of the evidence exists which would support a finding that defendant committed the lesser offense but did not commit the greater one (cf. CPL 1.20, subd 37; 300.50; People v Henderson, 41 NY2d 233, 235-237 and cases there cited]). Martuscello, Acting P. J., Cohalan, Rabin and Mollen, 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, Queens County, rendered September 26, 1975, convicting him of [892]*892burglary in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. Judgment reversed, on the law, and new trial ordered. The findings of fact are affirmed. Upon the trial the defendant, who was indicted for burglary in the third degree, requested the court to submit to the jury the lesser included offenses of attempted burglary in the third degree and criminal trespass. Although the prosecutor agreed to this request, the trial court refused to do so, holding that, as a matter of law, the defendant either was guilty of burglary in the third degree or was not guilty of anything. This was error, as the District Attorney concedes. It may not be said on the record presented that no reasonable view of the evidence exists which would support a finding that defendant committed the lesser offense but did not commit the greater one (cf. CPL 1.20, subd 37; 300.50; People v Henderson, 41 NY2d 233, 235-237 and cases there cited]). Martuscello, Acting P. J., Cohalan, Rabin and Mollen, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

56 A.D.2d 891, 392 N.Y.S.2d 676, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11283, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-beaver-nyappdiv-1977.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack