People v. Castro

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Castro

110 A.D.2d 775, 488 N.Y.S.2d 216, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 48679

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

DecidedApril 15, 1985

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 110 A.D.2d 775 (People v. Castro) 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. Castro, 110 A.D.2d 775, 488 N.Y.S.2d 216, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 48679 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

Defendant’s challenge to the admissibility of the arresting officer’s testimony reciting the chronology of events leading to defendant’s arrest and subsequent identification by the complainants has not been preserved for appellate review (see, People v Martin, 50 NY2d 1029, 1031; People v Jones, 81 AD2d 22, 29). In any event, even if we were to reach the merits, we would find that defendant has failed to demonstrate that the jury engaged in any improper speculation based on that testimony. Rather, there was overwhelming evidence upon which the jury could rely.

[776]*776Nor do we find fault with the court’s “interested witness” charge. Contrary to defendant’s assertions, the jury was never instructed to strictly scrutinize defendant’s testimony nor did the court suggest that there were special reasons to doubt defendant’s veracity (cf. People v Ochs, 3 NY2d 54, 57; People v Demery, 60 AD2d 606, 607). We find nothing prejudicial in the charge as given.

Lastly, we conclude that the sentence imposed was neither unduly harsh nor excessive. Titone, J. P., Thompson, Bracken and Rubin, JJ., concur.

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

Defendant’s challenge to the admissibility of the arresting officer’s testimony reciting the chronology of events leading to defendant’s arrest and subsequent identification by the complainants has not been preserved for appellate review (see, People v Martin, 50 NY2d 1029, 1031; People v Jones, 81 AD2d 22, 29). In any event, even if we were to reach the merits, we would find that defendant has failed to demonstrate that the jury engaged in any improper speculation based on that testimony. Rather, there was overwhelming evidence upon which the jury could rely.

[776]*776Nor do we find fault with the court’s “interested witness” charge. Contrary to defendant’s assertions, the jury was never instructed to strictly scrutinize defendant’s testimony nor did the court suggest that there were special reasons to doubt defendant’s veracity (cf. People v Ochs, 3 NY2d 54, 57; People v Demery, 60 AD2d 606, 607). We find nothing prejudicial in the charge as given.

Lastly, we conclude that the sentence imposed was neither unduly harsh nor excessive. Titone, J. P., Thompson, Bracken and Rubin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

110 A.D.2d 775, 488 N.Y.S.2d 216, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 48679, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-castro-nyappdiv-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack