People v. Caro

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Caro

248 A.D.2d 276, 670 N.Y.S.2d 79, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3206

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

DecidedMarch 24, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 248 A.D.2d 276 (People v. Caro) 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. Caro, 248 A.D.2d 276, 670 N.Y.S.2d 79, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3206 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Alfred Kleiman, J.), rendered July 11, 1994, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 5 to 10 years, unanimously affirmed.

The court’s final jury charge, when read as a whole, was fair and balanced, and conveyed the appropriate standards concerning burdens of proof and evaluation of testimony. Even if it could be concluded that some of the court’s comments were not evenhanded, any such error would be harmless given the overwhelming evidence of defendant’s guilt and the absence of [277]*277any reasonable possibility that a different instruction by the court would have resulted in a different outcome.

Concur— Sullivan, J. P., Milonas, Rosenberger and Tom, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Alfred Kleiman, J.), rendered July 11, 1994, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 5 to 10 years, unanimously affirmed.

The court’s final jury charge, when read as a whole, was fair and balanced, and conveyed the appropriate standards concerning burdens of proof and evaluation of testimony. Even if it could be concluded that some of the court’s comments were not evenhanded, any such error would be harmless given the overwhelming evidence of defendant’s guilt and the absence of [277]*277any reasonable possibility that a different instruction by the court would have resulted in a different outcome.

Concur— Sullivan, J. P., Milonas, Rosenberger and Tom, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

248 A.D.2d 276, 670 N.Y.S.2d 79, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3206, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-caro-nyappdiv-1998.