People v. Brewer

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Brewer

224 A.D.2d 294, 638 N.Y.S.2d 304

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

DecidedFebruary 15, 1996

StatusPublished

This text of 224 A.D.2d 294 (People v. Brewer) 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. Brewer, 224 A.D.2d 294, 638 N.Y.S.2d 304 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Thomas Galligan, J.) rendered October 14, 1993, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of two counts of robbery in the second degree, and sentencing him to concurrent terms oi 21h to 7 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s claim that the trial court failed to instruct the jurors to keep the four incidents separate in their minds is not preserved for appellate review as a matter of law (see, People v Drake, 204 AD2d 479, lv denied 84 NY2d 907) and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review it, we would find it to be without merit in light of the charge as a whole, which properly conveyed the appropriate standard (see, People v Hall, 169 AD2d 778). We likewise find defendant’s challenge to the prosecutor’s summation unpreserved and without merit. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Milonas, Ellerin, Rubin and Kupferman, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Thomas Galligan, J.) rendered October 14, 1993, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of two counts of robbery in the second degree, and sentencing him to concurrent terms oi 21h to 7 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s claim that the trial court failed to instruct the jurors to keep the four incidents separate in their minds is not preserved for appellate review as a matter of law (see, People v Drake, 204 AD2d 479, lv denied 84 NY2d 907) and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review it, we would find it to be without merit in light of the charge as a whole, which properly conveyed the appropriate standard (see, People v Hall, 169 AD2d 778). We likewise find defendant’s challenge to the prosecutor’s summation unpreserved and without merit. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Milonas, Ellerin, Rubin and Kupferman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

224 A.D.2d 294, 638 N.Y.S.2d 304, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-brewer-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack