People v. Cintron

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Cintron

89 A.D.2d 590, 452 N.Y.S.2d 258, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 17666

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

DecidedJuly 12, 1982

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 89 A.D.2d 590 (People v. Cintron) 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. Cintron, 89 A.D.2d 590, 452 N.Y.S.2d 258, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 17666 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County (Samenga, J.), rendered March 13, 1981, convicting him of criminal possession of stolen property in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. Judgment reversed, on the law, and new trial ordered. [591]*591No issue has been presented with respect to the facts on which the judgment is based. The failure to grant defendant’s request to charge, pursuant to CPL 300.10 (subd 2), that no unfavorable inference may be drawn from his failure to testify, is reversible error (see People v Britt, 43 NY2d 111; Carter v Kentucky, 450 US 288). Under the circumstances here, the request for the charge immediately after the court called for exceptions and before the jury had started ,to deliberate, was neither untimely nor improper. Gibbons, J. P., Weinstein, Gulotta and Thompson, 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 County Court, Nassau County (Samenga, J.), rendered March 13, 1981, convicting him of criminal possession of stolen property in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. Judgment reversed, on the law, and new trial ordered. [591]*591No issue has been presented with respect to the facts on which the judgment is based. The failure to grant defendant’s request to charge, pursuant to CPL 300.10 (subd 2), that no unfavorable inference may be drawn from his failure to testify, is reversible error (see People v Britt, 43 NY2d 111; Carter v Kentucky, 450 US 288). Under the circumstances here, the request for the charge immediately after the court called for exceptions and before the jury had started ,to deliberate, was neither untimely nor improper. Gibbons, J. P., Weinstein, Gulotta and Thompson, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

89 A.D.2d 590, 452 N.Y.S.2d 258, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 17666, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-cintron-nyappdiv-1982.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack