People v. Browne

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Browne

119 A.D.2d 684, 501 N.Y.S.2d 300, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 55602

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

DecidedApril 14, 1986

StatusPublished

This text of 119 A.D.2d 684 (People v. Browne) 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. Browne, 119 A.D.2d 684, 501 N.Y.S.2d 300, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 55602 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

— Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Giaccio, J.), [685]*685rendered March 9, 1982, convicting him of burglary in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Judgment affirmed.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People, as we must (see, People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620), the evidence was sufficient for the jury to conclude that the defendant had committed the crime of burglary in the third degree (see, People v Taylor, 114 AD2d 428). The defendant’s claim that the trial court failed to instruct the jury that the intent must be contemporaneous with the entry is belied by the record, which indicates that the court did so charge. Lazer, J. P., Niehoff, Kooper and Spatt, 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, Queens County (Giaccio, J.), [685]*685rendered March 9, 1982, convicting him of burglary in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Judgment affirmed.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People, as we must (see, People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620), the evidence was sufficient for the jury to conclude that the defendant had committed the crime of burglary in the third degree (see, People v Taylor, 114 AD2d 428). The defendant’s claim that the trial court failed to instruct the jury that the intent must be contemporaneous with the entry is belied by the record, which indicates that the court did so charge. Lazer, J. P., Niehoff, Kooper and Spatt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

119 A.D.2d 684, 501 N.Y.S.2d 300, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 55602, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-browne-nyappdiv-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack