People v. Borrero

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Borrero

104 A.D.2d 999, 480 N.Y.S.2d 774, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 20429

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

DecidedOctober 22, 1984

StatusPublished

This text of 104 A.D.2d 999 (People v. Borrero) 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. Borrero, 104 A.D.2d 999, 480 N.Y.S.2d 774, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 20429 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

— Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Rigler, J.), rendered March 10, 1982, convicting him of murder in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of defendant’s motion to set aside the verdict, pursuant to CPL 330.30.

Judgment affirmed.

Under the circumstances herein, we find that the cumulative effect of the trial court’s Allen-type charge (see Allen v United States, 164 US 492), and the subsequent action of a court officer in entering the jury room and requesting that the jurors give her their telephone numbers and any messages, was not coercive, and did not affect a substantial right of the defendant (see CPL 310.10, 330.30, subd 2; People v Sharff, 38 NY2d 751; People v Pagan, 45 NY2d 725). Accordingly, the trial court properly denied defendant’s motion to set aside the verdict. Mollen, P. J., Lazer, Gibbons and Brown, 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 (Rigler, J.), rendered March 10, 1982, convicting him of murder in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of defendant’s motion to set aside the verdict, pursuant to CPL 330.30.

Judgment affirmed.

Under the circumstances herein, we find that the cumulative effect of the trial court’s Allen-type charge (see Allen v United States, 164 US 492), and the subsequent action of a court officer in entering the jury room and requesting that the jurors give her their telephone numbers and any messages, was not coercive, and did not affect a substantial right of the defendant (see CPL 310.10, 330.30, subd 2; People v Sharff, 38 NY2d 751; People v Pagan, 45 NY2d 725). Accordingly, the trial court properly denied defendant’s motion to set aside the verdict. Mollen, P. J., Lazer, Gibbons and Brown, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

104 A.D.2d 999, 480 N.Y.S.2d 774, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 20429, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-borrero-nyappdiv-1984.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack