People v. Cyrus

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Cyrus

111 A.D.2d 867, 491 N.Y.S.2d 19, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 50125

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

DecidedJune 17, 1985

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 111 A.D.2d 867 (People v. Cyrus) 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. Cyrus, 111 A.D.2d 867, 491 N.Y.S.2d 19, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 50125 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Meyerson, J.), rendered August 3, 1981, convicting him of burglary in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Judgment affirmed.

No objection was registered with respect to the portions of the court’s charge of which defendant now complains and, therefore, he has failed to preserve the issues for appellate review (People v Gonzales, 56 NY2d 1001). In any event, although the trial court improperly referred to “wavered” minds in instructing the jury with respect to reasonable doubt, examination of the charge as a whole discloses that the court conveyed the correct rule of law to the jury (People v Stevenson, 104 AD2d 835, 836). Moreover, the court did not prejudicially or unduly prolong its charge with respect to defendant’s right to remain silent at trial. Finally, since the People’s case was not based solely on circumstantial evidence, no special instruction with respect thereto was required (People v Ruiz, 52 NY2d 929, 930). Lazer, J. P., Gibbons, O’Connor and Brown, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Meyerson, J.), rendered August 3, 1981, convicting him of burglary in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Judgment affirmed.

No objection was registered with respect to the portions of the court’s charge of which defendant now complains and, therefore, he has failed to preserve the issues for appellate review (People v Gonzales, 56 NY2d 1001). In any event, although the trial court improperly referred to “wavered” minds in instructing the jury with respect to reasonable doubt, examination of the charge as a whole discloses that the court conveyed the correct rule of law to the jury (People v Stevenson, 104 AD2d 835, 836). Moreover, the court did not prejudicially or unduly prolong its charge with respect to defendant’s right to remain silent at trial. Finally, since the People’s case was not based solely on circumstantial evidence, no special instruction with respect thereto was required (People v Ruiz, 52 NY2d 929, 930). Lazer, J. P., Gibbons, O’Connor and Brown, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

111 A.D.2d 867, 491 N.Y.S.2d 19, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 50125, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-cyrus-nyappdiv-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack