People v. Crenshaw

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Crenshaw

253 A.D.2d 827, 681 N.Y.S.2d 540, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9544

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

DecidedSeptember 21, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 253 A.D.2d 827 (People v. Crenshaw) 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. Crenshaw, 253 A.D.2d 827, 681 N.Y.S.2d 540, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9544 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Jones, J.), rendered July 29, 1996, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, robbery in the second degree, crim[828]*828inal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant failed to preserve for appellate review his claim that the court erred in not responding to a note from the foreperson of the jury (see, CPL 470.05; People v Ramkisson, 245 AD2d 393). In any event, the defendant was not prejudiced by the court’s failure to respond to the note before accepting the verdict (see, People v Agosto, 73 NY2d 963). The record is devoid of any evidence in support of the defendant’s contention that the verdict was coerced. Bracken, J. P., Ritter, Thompson and Krausman, 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 Supreme Court, Kings County (Jones, J.), rendered July 29, 1996, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, robbery in the second degree, crim[828]*828inal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant failed to preserve for appellate review his claim that the court erred in not responding to a note from the foreperson of the jury (see, CPL 470.05; People v Ramkisson, 245 AD2d 393). In any event, the defendant was not prejudiced by the court’s failure to respond to the note before accepting the verdict (see, People v Agosto, 73 NY2d 963). The record is devoid of any evidence in support of the defendant’s contention that the verdict was coerced. Bracken, J. P., Ritter, Thompson and Krausman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

253 A.D.2d 827, 681 N.Y.S.2d 540, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9544, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-crenshaw-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack