People v. Coast

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Coast

77 A.D.2d 810, 430 N.Y.S.2d 762, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12583

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

DecidedJuly 10, 1980

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 77 A.D.2d 810 (People v. Coast) 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. Coast, 77 A.D.2d 810, 430 N.Y.S.2d 762, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12583 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Of the several issues raised by defendants on these appeals, only one requires comment. The record indicates that the court failed to inform defendants before summation, as the statute requires, of the-counts and offenses it intended to submit to the jury (see CPL 300.10, subd 3; 300.30, subd 1). However, defendants were not denied their right to an effective summation because the only issue in the case was one which was the same for all counts regardless of what crimes were actually submitted to the jury, i.e., identification, and because the defendants were convicted of offenses as charged in the indictment (People v Scott, 66 AD2d 861; People v Cheeks, 66 AD2d 1021; People v Chapman, 60 AD2d 584; People v Vicaretti, 54 AD2d 236). The error, therefore, was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. (Appeal from judgment of Monroe Supreme Court—robbery, first degree.) Present—Cardamone, J. P., Simons, Callahan, Doerr and Moule, JJ.

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

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Of the several issues raised by defendants on these appeals, only one requires comment. The record indicates that the court failed to inform defendants before summation, as the statute requires, of the-counts and offenses it intended to submit to the jury (see CPL 300.10, subd 3; 300.30, subd 1). However, defendants were not denied their right to an effective summation because the only issue in the case was one which was the same for all counts regardless of what crimes were actually submitted to the jury, i.e., identification, and because the defendants were convicted of offenses as charged in the indictment (People v Scott, 66 AD2d 861; People v Cheeks, 66 AD2d 1021; People v Chapman, 60 AD2d 584; People v Vicaretti, 54 AD2d 236). The error, therefore, was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. (Appeal from judgment of Monroe Supreme Court—robbery, first degree.) Present—Cardamone, J. P., Simons, Callahan, Doerr and Moule, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

77 A.D.2d 810, 430 N.Y.S.2d 762, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12583, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-coast-nyappdiv-1980.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack