People v. Butt

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Butt

306 A.D.2d 111, 759 N.Y.S.2d 875, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6661

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

DecidedJune 12, 2003

StatusPublished

This text of 306 A.D.2d 111 (People v. Butt) 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. Butt, 306 A.D.2d 111, 759 N.Y.S.2d 875, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6661 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Harold Silverman, J.), rendered December 19, 2000, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of assault in the first degree, and sentencing him to a term of 12 years with five years postrelease supervision, unanimously affirmed.

Since defendant failed to make his position sufficiently clear during the colloquy following the court’s charge, his claim that the charge effectively informed the jury that the element of serious physical injury had been established is unpreserved (see People v Lopez, 185 AD2d 189, 191 [1992], lv denied 80 NY2d 975 [1992]), and we decline to review it in the interest of justice.

Defendant’s challenge to the court’s instruction on excessive force is also unpreserved and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review this claim, we would find that the instruction conveyed the proper standards.

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. Concur— Rosenberger, J.P., Lerner, Friedman, Marlow and Gonzalez, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Harold Silverman, J.), rendered December 19, 2000, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of assault in the first degree, and sentencing him to a term of 12 years with five years postrelease supervision, unanimously affirmed.

Since defendant failed to make his position sufficiently clear during the colloquy following the court’s charge, his claim that the charge effectively informed the jury that the element of serious physical injury had been established is unpreserved (see People v Lopez, 185 AD2d 189, 191 [1992], lv denied 80 NY2d 975 [1992]), and we decline to review it in the interest of justice.

Defendant’s challenge to the court’s instruction on excessive force is also unpreserved and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review this claim, we would find that the instruction conveyed the proper standards.

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. Concur— Rosenberger, J.P., Lerner, Friedman, Marlow and Gonzalez, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

306 A.D.2d 111, 759 N.Y.S.2d 875, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6661, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-butt-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack