People v. Ciesluk

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Ciesluk

106 A.D.2d 514, 483 N.Y.S.2d 49, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 21551

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided December 17, 1984·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

—Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Stark, J.), rendered October 14, 1980, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Judgment reversed, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, and new trial ordered. The findings of fact are affirmed.

At trial, defendant presented an alibi defense which, if believed, placed him many miles away from the scene of the crime at the time that it occurred. The trial court’s charge on this issue was inadequate. Although the jury was told that it could acquit defendant if it found that his alibi defense raised a reasonable doubt, it was not instructed in unequivocal terms that the People had the burden of disproving the alibi defense beyond a reasonable doubt, and also had the burden of proving defendant guilty by the same standard, even if the alibi was not believed (see, e.g., People v Victor, 62 NY2d 374; People v Vera, 94 AD2d 728; CJI 12.10).

Defendant’s other claims are either unpreserved or without merit. Titone, J. P., Mangano, Gibbons and O’Connor, JJ., concur.

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

—Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Stark, J.), rendered October 14, 1980, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Judgment reversed, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, and new trial ordered. The findings of fact are affirmed.

At trial, defendant presented an alibi defense which, if believed, placed him many miles away from the scene of the crime at the time that it occurred. The trial court’s charge on this issue was inadequate. Although the jury was told that it could acquit defendant if it found that his alibi defense raised a reasonable doubt, it was not instructed in unequivocal terms that the People had the burden of disproving the alibi defense beyond a reasonable doubt, and also had the burden of proving defendant guilty by the same standard, even if the alibi was not believed (see, e.g., People v Victor, 62 NY2d 374; People v Vera, 94 AD2d 728; CJI 12.10).

Defendant’s other claims are either unpreserved or without merit. Titone, J. P., Mangano, Gibbons and O’Connor, JJ., concur.

People v. Ciesluk, 106 A.D.2d 514, 483 N.Y.S.2d 49, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 21551 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1984).

Pincite

106 A.D.2d 514 (People v. Ciesluk) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related