People v. Dorsey

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Dorsey

193 A.D.2d 1074, 600 N.Y.S.2d 670, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5696

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in People v. Dorsey. Read the opinion of the Court — 166 A.D.2d 180 →

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided May 28, 1993·Published

Opinion

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant was not deprived of a fair trial by prosecutorial misconduct, and the charge on reasonable doubt, when read as a whole, did not dilute the [1075]*1075burden of proof. Defendant failed to preserve for our review his argument that the court erroneously failed to instruct the jury on the issue of identification. (Appeal from Judgment of Onondaga County Court, Burke, J.—Rape, 3rd Degree.) Present—Denman, P. J., Pine, Balio, Boomer 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 not deprived of a fair trial by prosecutorial misconduct, and the charge on reasonable doubt, when read as a whole, did not dilute the [1075]*1075burden of proof. Defendant failed to preserve for our review his argument that the court erroneously failed to instruct the jury on the issue of identification. (Appeal from Judgment of Onondaga County Court, Burke, J.—Rape, 3rd Degree.) Present—Denman, P. J., Pine, Balio, Boomer and Davis, JJ.

People v. Dorsey, 193 A.D.2d 1074, 600 N.Y.S.2d 670, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5696 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

193 A.D.2d 1074 (People v. Dorsey) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.