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

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

DecidedMay 28, 1993

StatusPublished

This text of 193 A.D.2d 1074 (People v. Dorsey) 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. 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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

193 A.D.2d 1074, 600 N.Y.S.2d 670, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5696, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-dorsey-nyappdiv-1993.