People v. Bunch

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Bunch

207 A.D.2d 460, 616 N.Y.S.2d 231

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

DecidedAugust 15, 1994

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 207 A.D.2d 460 (People v. Bunch) 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. Bunch, 207 A.D.2d 460, 616 N.Y.S.2d 231 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Goldstein, J.), rendered October 30, 1991, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant has not preserved for appellate review his contention that the trial court erred in failing to respond meaningfully to a request for further instruction by the jury when it indicated it was at an impasse at 10:30 p.m., after approximately 6Y2 hours of deliberation, and asked for advice. In any event, the court’s action in directing sequestration and instructing that deliberations cease until the next morning was appropriate under the circumstances.

In addition, the defendant’s sentence was not excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80). Lawrence, J. P., O’Brien, Friedmann and Krausman, 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, Kings County (Goldstein, J.), rendered October 30, 1991, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant has not preserved for appellate review his contention that the trial court erred in failing to respond meaningfully to a request for further instruction by the jury when it indicated it was at an impasse at 10:30 p.m., after approximately 6Y2 hours of deliberation, and asked for advice. In any event, the court’s action in directing sequestration and instructing that deliberations cease until the next morning was appropriate under the circumstances.

In addition, the defendant’s sentence was not excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80). Lawrence, J. P., O’Brien, Friedmann and Krausman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

207 A.D.2d 460, 616 N.Y.S.2d 231, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-bunch-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack