People v. Curet

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Curet

198 A.D.2d 159, 605 N.Y.S.2d 845, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10987

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

DecidedNovember 23, 1993

StatusPublished

This text of 198 A.D.2d 159 (People v. Curet) 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. Curet, 198 A.D.2d 159, 605 N.Y.S.2d 845, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10987 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan Sudolnik, J.), rendered December 18, 1991, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal mischief in the third degree, and sentencing him, as [160]*160a second felony offender, to a prison term of 2 to 4 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s contention that the trial court erred in instructing the jury on the legal principles governing the evaluation of a case based solely on circumstantial evidence is not preserved for appellate review, and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review, we would find that the evidence was not wholly circumstantial and that a "circumstantial evidence charge” therefore was not required (see, People v Cedeno, 175 AD2d 767, 768-769, lv denied 79 NY2d 854). We would also find that the trial court’s charge adequately conveys that a guilty verdict may be returned only if the circumstantial evidence excludes beyond a reasonable doubt any reasonable hypothesis of innocence. Concur — Murphy, P. J., Carro, Ellerin and Nardelli, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan Sudolnik, J.), rendered December 18, 1991, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal mischief in the third degree, and sentencing him, as [160]*160a second felony offender, to a prison term of 2 to 4 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s contention that the trial court erred in instructing the jury on the legal principles governing the evaluation of a case based solely on circumstantial evidence is not preserved for appellate review, and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review, we would find that the evidence was not wholly circumstantial and that a "circumstantial evidence charge” therefore was not required (see, People v Cedeno, 175 AD2d 767, 768-769, lv denied 79 NY2d 854). We would also find that the trial court’s charge adequately conveys that a guilty verdict may be returned only if the circumstantial evidence excludes beyond a reasonable doubt any reasonable hypothesis of innocence. Concur — Murphy, P. J., Carro, Ellerin and Nardelli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

198 A.D.2d 159, 605 N.Y.S.2d 845, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10987, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-curet-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack