People v. Chin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Chin

109 A.D.3d 768, 971 N.Y.S.2d 300

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

DecidedSeptember 26, 2013

StatusPublished

This text of 109 A.D.3d 768 (People v. Chin) 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. Chin, 109 A.D.3d 768, 971 N.Y.S.2d 300 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

— Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward J. McLaughlin, J.), rendered September 22, 2009, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of [769]*769burglary in the second degree and grand larceny in the third degree, and sentencing her to concurrent terms of six years and 2V3 to 7 years, respectively, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant failed to preserve her argument that the court should have charged the jury that it could acquit her even if it did not believe the defense witnesses, and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Although defendant joined in a codefendant’s objection to the court’s charge, that objection did not preserve the particular issue defendant raises on appeal. As an alternative holding, we find that the court properly instructed the jury that the burden of proof always remained on the People, and that the fact that the defense called witnesses did not shift the burden of proof. Viewed as a whole (see generally People v Umali, 10 NY3d 417, 427 [2008]), the court’s charge gave the jury the same information that defendant claims should have been given.

Defendant’s challenge to the use of an official court interpreter who was acquainted with the victims is unavailing (see People v Lee, 89 AD3d 633 [1st Dept 2011], affd 21 NY3d 176 [2013]).

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. Concur— Mazzarelli, J.P, Sweeny, Renwick and Richter, JJ.

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

— Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward J. McLaughlin, J.), rendered September 22, 2009, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of [769]*769burglary in the second degree and grand larceny in the third degree, and sentencing her to concurrent terms of six years and 2V3 to 7 years, respectively, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant failed to preserve her argument that the court should have charged the jury that it could acquit her even if it did not believe the defense witnesses, and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Although defendant joined in a codefendant’s objection to the court’s charge, that objection did not preserve the particular issue defendant raises on appeal. As an alternative holding, we find that the court properly instructed the jury that the burden of proof always remained on the People, and that the fact that the defense called witnesses did not shift the burden of proof. Viewed as a whole (see generally People v Umali, 10 NY3d 417, 427 [2008]), the court’s charge gave the jury the same information that defendant claims should have been given.

Defendant’s challenge to the use of an official court interpreter who was acquainted with the victims is unavailing (see People v Lee, 89 AD3d 633 [1st Dept 2011], affd 21 NY3d 176 [2013]).

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. Concur— Mazzarelli, J.P, Sweeny, Renwick and Richter, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

109 A.D.3d 768, 971 N.Y.S.2d 300, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-chin-nyappdiv-2013.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack