People v. DeCampoamor

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. DeCampoamor

140 A.D.2d 537, 528 N.Y.S.2d 619, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5444

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

DecidedMay 16, 1988

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 140 A.D.2d 537 (People v. DeCampoamor) 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. DeCampoamor, 140 A.D.2d 537, 528 N.Y.S.2d 619, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5444 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People (see, People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620, 621), we find that the trial testimony was legally sufficient for the jury to find the defendant guilty of the charges upon which he was convicted. Upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (CPL 470.15 [5]). Based upon our review of the record, we are persuaded that the People disproved the defendant’s justification defense beyond a reasonable doubt (Penal Law § 25.00 [1]; §§ 35.00, 35.15).

Although the trial court erred in its jury charge by delivering a statement that could have arguably led the jury to speculate concerning the defendant’s sentence or punishment (CPL 300.10 [2]), under the circumstances we find the error to be harmless (see, People v Johnson, 57 NY2d 969; People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230, 237).

The sentence the defendant received was not unduly harsh or excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80).

Finally, we have reviewed the contentions raised in the defendant’s supplemental pro se brief and find them to be without merit. Thompson, J. P., Lawrence, Fiber and Balletta, JJ., concur.

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

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People (see, People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620, 621), we find that the trial testimony was legally sufficient for the jury to find the defendant guilty of the charges upon which he was convicted. Upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (CPL 470.15 [5]). Based upon our review of the record, we are persuaded that the People disproved the defendant’s justification defense beyond a reasonable doubt (Penal Law § 25.00 [1]; §§ 35.00, 35.15).

Although the trial court erred in its jury charge by delivering a statement that could have arguably led the jury to speculate concerning the defendant’s sentence or punishment (CPL 300.10 [2]), under the circumstances we find the error to be harmless (see, People v Johnson, 57 NY2d 969; People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230, 237).

The sentence the defendant received was not unduly harsh or excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80).

Finally, we have reviewed the contentions raised in the defendant’s supplemental pro se brief and find them to be without merit. Thompson, J. P., Lawrence, Fiber and Balletta, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

140 A.D.2d 537, 528 N.Y.S.2d 619, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5444, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-decampoamor-nyappdiv-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack