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

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided February 10, 1997·Published·Cited by 7 cases

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.

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

236 A.D.2d 484 (People v. Dukes) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related