People v. Carrasquillo-Villanueva

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Carrasquillo-Villanueva

178 A.D.2d 985, 579 N.Y.S.2d 259, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 17839

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

DecidedDecember 26, 1991

StatusPublished

This text of 178 A.D.2d 985 (People v. Carrasquillo-Villanueva) 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. Carrasquillo-Villanueva, 178 A.D.2d 985, 579 N.Y.S.2d 259, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 17839 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant contends that the trial court’s charge on justification was inadequate. That issue was not preserved for our review by timely objection (see, CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Thomas, 50 NY2d 467). Because there was strong evidence of defendant’s guilt that rebutted his justification defense, we decline to consider the alleged error as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see, CPL 470.15 [6]; People v Comfort, 113 AD2d 420; People v Swinson, 111 AD2d 275, 276).

We have reviewed the remaining contentions raised by counsel and by defendant pro se and find them to be without merit. (Appeal from Judgment of Onondaga County Court, Cunningham, J. — Manslaughter, 1st Degree.) Present — Den-man, P. J., Doerr, Green, Lawton and Davis, JJ.

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

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant contends that the trial court’s charge on justification was inadequate. That issue was not preserved for our review by timely objection (see, CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Thomas, 50 NY2d 467). Because there was strong evidence of defendant’s guilt that rebutted his justification defense, we decline to consider the alleged error as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see, CPL 470.15 [6]; People v Comfort, 113 AD2d 420; People v Swinson, 111 AD2d 275, 276).

We have reviewed the remaining contentions raised by counsel and by defendant pro se and find them to be without merit. (Appeal from Judgment of Onondaga County Court, Cunningham, J. — Manslaughter, 1st Degree.) Present — Den-man, P. J., Doerr, Green, Lawton and Davis, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

178 A.D.2d 985, 579 N.Y.S.2d 259, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 17839, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-carrasquillo-villanueva-nyappdiv-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack