People v. Cotto

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Cotto

139 A.D.2d 967, 527 N.Y.S.2d 994, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4201

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

DecidedApril 8, 1988

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 139 A.D.2d 967 (People v. Cotto) 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. Cotto, 139 A.D.2d 967, 527 N.Y.S.2d 994, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4201 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

— Judgment unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant was convicted of first degree manslaughter as a lesser included offense of second degree murder for shooting an acquaintance. Defendant’s primary claim is that the court’s charge and supplemental charge on justification were inadequate and require reversal. Defendant, however, did not object to the supplemental charge and did not preserve that issue for review (CPL 470.05 [2]). In any event, the court’s entire charge adequately explained the justification defense and clarified the People’s burden of proof on this issue (see, People v Goetz, 68 NY2d 96; People v Crosby, 115 AD2d 988, lv denied 67 NY2d 941; People v Comfort, 113 AD2d 430; cf., People v Williams, 121 AD2d 145). We have considered defendant’s remaining claims and find that each one lacks merit (Appeal from judgment of Monroe County Court, Celli, J. — manslaughter, first degree.) Present — Denman, J. P., Boomer, Green, Lawton and Davis, JJ.

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

— Judgment unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant was convicted of first degree manslaughter as a lesser included offense of second degree murder for shooting an acquaintance. Defendant’s primary claim is that the court’s charge and supplemental charge on justification were inadequate and require reversal. Defendant, however, did not object to the supplemental charge and did not preserve that issue for review (CPL 470.05 [2]). In any event, the court’s entire charge adequately explained the justification defense and clarified the People’s burden of proof on this issue (see, People v Goetz, 68 NY2d 96; People v Crosby, 115 AD2d 988, lv denied 67 NY2d 941; People v Comfort, 113 AD2d 430; cf., People v Williams, 121 AD2d 145). We have considered defendant’s remaining claims and find that each one lacks merit (Appeal from judgment of Monroe County Court, Celli, J. — manslaughter, first degree.) Present — Denman, J. P., Boomer, Green, Lawton and Davis, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

139 A.D.2d 967, 527 N.Y.S.2d 994, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4201, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-cotto-nyappdiv-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack