People v. Boykin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Boykin

14 A.D.3d 576, 787 N.Y.S.2d 662, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 388

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided January 18, 2005·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Orange County (DeRosa, J.), rendered September 7, 2003, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree (two counts), and reckless endangerment in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant contends that the County Court’s supplemental Allen charge (see Allen v United States, 164 US 492 [1896]) was coercive, imbalanced, and impermissibly shifted the burden of proof to him by requiring jurors to provide an explanation for their respective positions. However, considered as a whole, the [577] charge was not coercive and struck a fair balance between encouraging jurors to attempt to reach a unanimous verdict and not to abandon their conscientiously-held beliefs (see People v Jolly, 282 AD2d 474, 475 [2001]; People v Davis, 259 AD2d 627, 627-628 [1999]; People v Kendrick, 256 AD2d 420, 421 [1998]; People v McGriff, 254 AD2d 503, 504 [1998]; cf. People v Aponte, 2 NY3d 304 [2004]).

Further, the charge did not impermissibly shift the burden of proof to the defendant by requiring jurors to provide an explanation for their respective positions (cf. People v Antommarchi, 80 NY2d 247, 252-253 [1992]; People v Henry, 283 AD2d 587, 588 [2001]; People v Diaz, 245 AD2d 526, 527 [1997]). Schmidt, J.P., Adams, Cozier and S. Miller, 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 County Court, Orange County (DeRosa, J.), rendered September 7, 2003, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree (two counts), and reckless endangerment in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant contends that the County Court’s supplemental Allen charge (see Allen v United States, 164 US 492 [1896]) was coercive, imbalanced, and impermissibly shifted the burden of proof to him by requiring jurors to provide an explanation for their respective positions. However, considered as a whole, the [577] charge was not coercive and struck a fair balance between encouraging jurors to attempt to reach a unanimous verdict and not to abandon their conscientiously-held beliefs (see People v Jolly, 282 AD2d 474, 475 [2001]; People v Davis, 259 AD2d 627, 627-628 [1999]; People v Kendrick, 256 AD2d 420, 421 [1998]; People v McGriff, 254 AD2d 503, 504 [1998]; cf. People v Aponte, 2 NY3d 304 [2004]).

Further, the charge did not impermissibly shift the burden of proof to the defendant by requiring jurors to provide an explanation for their respective positions (cf. People v Antommarchi, 80 NY2d 247, 252-253 [1992]; People v Henry, 283 AD2d 587, 588 [2001]; People v Diaz, 245 AD2d 526, 527 [1997]). Schmidt, J.P., Adams, Cozier and S. Miller, JJ., concur.

People v. Boykin, 14 A.D.3d 576, 787 N.Y.S.2d 662, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 388 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

14 A.D.3d 576 (People v. Boykin) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related