People v. Corrado

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Corrado

256 A.D.2d 586, 682 N.Y.S.2d 879, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13993

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

DecidedDecember 28, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 256 A.D.2d 586 (People v. Corrado) 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. Corrado, 256 A.D.2d 586, 682 N.Y.S.2d 879, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13993 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Westchester County (Lange, J.), rendered May 19, 1997, convicting him of murder in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s assertion, the trial court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in admitting testimony regarding the defendant’s prior threats against the victim as evidence of, inter alia, intent (see, People v Alvino, 71 NY2d 233; People v Hamid, 209 AD2d 716).

The defendant failed to preserve for appellate review his claim that the court erred in permitting a readback to the jury of the testimony of the People’s expert concerning the defense of extreme emotional disturbance (see, Penal Law § 125.25 [1] [a]). In any event, the court gave a limiting instruction and the jury is presumed to have followed the court’s concededly correct charge concerning the defense (see, People v Berg, 59 NY2d 294; People v Ferrer, 245 AD2d 569). Miller, J. P., Ritter, Sullivan and Pizzuto, JJ., concur.

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

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Westchester County (Lange, J.), rendered May 19, 1997, convicting him of murder in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s assertion, the trial court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in admitting testimony regarding the defendant’s prior threats against the victim as evidence of, inter alia, intent (see, People v Alvino, 71 NY2d 233; People v Hamid, 209 AD2d 716).

The defendant failed to preserve for appellate review his claim that the court erred in permitting a readback to the jury of the testimony of the People’s expert concerning the defense of extreme emotional disturbance (see, Penal Law § 125.25 [1] [a]). In any event, the court gave a limiting instruction and the jury is presumed to have followed the court’s concededly correct charge concerning the defense (see, People v Berg, 59 NY2d 294; People v Ferrer, 245 AD2d 569). Miller, J. P., Ritter, Sullivan and Pizzuto, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

256 A.D.2d 586, 682 N.Y.S.2d 879, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13993, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-corrado-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack