People v. Freire

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Freire

232 A.D.2d 254, 649 N.Y.S.2d 407, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10304

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

DecidedOctober 17, 1996

StatusPublished

This text of 232 A.D.2d 254 (People v. Freire) 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. Freire, 232 A.D.2d 254, 649 N.Y.S.2d 407, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10304 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Harold Roth wax, J.), rendered February 2, 1994, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of murder in the second degree, robbery in the first degree and manslaughter in the second degree, and sentencing him to concurrent terms of 25 years to life, 121/a to 25 years, and 5 to 15 years, respectively, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s claim that the trial court erred when, after rejecting a partial verdict, it told the jury to resume deliberations without explicitly stating that such should be "upon the entire case” (CPL 310.70 [1] [b] [ii]), is unpreserved for appellate review, since defendant "failed to object when the instruction was given and this error does not fall within the narrow class of error which need not be preserved by timely objection” (People v Andujar, 228 AD2d 194). In any event, the instruction neither limited the jury’s discussions to the charges on which it had not reached a verdict nor precluded the jury from reconsidering the counts upon which it had already agreed (supra). We perceive no abuse of sentencing discretion. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Rubin, Ross, Williams and Andrias, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Harold Roth wax, J.), rendered February 2, 1994, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of murder in the second degree, robbery in the first degree and manslaughter in the second degree, and sentencing him to concurrent terms of 25 years to life, 121/a to 25 years, and 5 to 15 years, respectively, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s claim that the trial court erred when, after rejecting a partial verdict, it told the jury to resume deliberations without explicitly stating that such should be "upon the entire case” (CPL 310.70 [1] [b] [ii]), is unpreserved for appellate review, since defendant "failed to object when the instruction was given and this error does not fall within the narrow class of error which need not be preserved by timely objection” (People v Andujar, 228 AD2d 194). In any event, the instruction neither limited the jury’s discussions to the charges on which it had not reached a verdict nor precluded the jury from reconsidering the counts upon which it had already agreed (supra). We perceive no abuse of sentencing discretion. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Rubin, Ross, Williams and Andrias, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

232 A.D.2d 254, 649 N.Y.S.2d 407, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10304, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-freire-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack