People v. Dukes

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Dukes

236 A.D.2d 484, 654 N.Y.S.2d 605, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1174

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

DecidedFebruary 10, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 236 A.D.2d 484 (People v. Dukes) 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. Dukes, 236 A.D.2d 484, 654 N.Y.S.2d 605, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1174 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Grajales, J.), rendered October 14, 1994, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

While there is a potential burden-shifting effect to an admonition, delivered in the presence of the jury, that a defense opening statement be confined to matters that the defense intends to "prove”, the court’s admonition in this case did not constitute reversible error (see, People v Fabian, 213 AD2d 298, 298-299; People v Rodriguez, 211 AD2d 443; People v Robinson, 202 AD2d 225, 225-226). Under the circumstances of this case, "there is no realistic view that the court’s remarks could be interpreted so as to skew the burden of proof’ (People v Concepcion, 228 AD2d 204, 206). Miller, J. P., Sullivan, Pizzuto and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

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

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Grajales, J.), rendered October 14, 1994, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

While there is a potential burden-shifting effect to an admonition, delivered in the presence of the jury, that a defense opening statement be confined to matters that the defense intends to "prove”, the court’s admonition in this case did not constitute reversible error (see, People v Fabian, 213 AD2d 298, 298-299; People v Rodriguez, 211 AD2d 443; People v Robinson, 202 AD2d 225, 225-226). Under the circumstances of this case, "there is no realistic view that the court’s remarks could be interpreted so as to skew the burden of proof’ (People v Concepcion, 228 AD2d 204, 206). Miller, J. P., Sullivan, Pizzuto and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

236 A.D.2d 484, 654 N.Y.S.2d 605, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1174, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-dukes-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack