People v. Gleixner

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Gleixner

124 A.D.2d 675, 508 N.Y.S.2d 50, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 61976

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

DecidedNovember 10, 1986

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 124 A.D.2d 675 (People v. Gleixner) 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. Gleixner, 124 A.D.2d 675, 508 N.Y.S.2d 50, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 61976 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

A review of the record indicates that there was sufficient evidence to support the jury’s verdict (see, People v Walstatter, 53 NY2d 871; People v Gebert, 118 AD2d 799, 801; People v Griffith, 80 AD2d 590, 591).

In addition, we find that the trial court correctly refused to charge the jury concerning the crime of sexual abuse in the third degree (Penal Law § 130.55), as a lesser included offense of the counts charging sodomy in the first degree (Penal Law § 130.50 [1], [2]; see, People v Wheeler, 67 NY2d 960). Moreover, the trial court did not err in refusing to charge the crime of sexual misconduct (Penal Law § 130.20 [2]) as a lesser included offense of the counts charging sodomy in the first degree (Penal Law § 130.50 [1], [2]; see, People v Aglio, 112 AD2d 440; cf. People v McEaddy, 30 NY2d 519).

We have considered the defendant’s other contentions and find them to be either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Lazer, J. P., Niehoff, Lawrence and Kooper, JJ., concur.

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

A review of the record indicates that there was sufficient evidence to support the jury’s verdict (see, People v Walstatter, 53 NY2d 871; People v Gebert, 118 AD2d 799, 801; People v Griffith, 80 AD2d 590, 591).

In addition, we find that the trial court correctly refused to charge the jury concerning the crime of sexual abuse in the third degree (Penal Law § 130.55), as a lesser included offense of the counts charging sodomy in the first degree (Penal Law § 130.50 [1], [2]; see, People v Wheeler, 67 NY2d 960). Moreover, the trial court did not err in refusing to charge the crime of sexual misconduct (Penal Law § 130.20 [2]) as a lesser included offense of the counts charging sodomy in the first degree (Penal Law § 130.50 [1], [2]; see, People v Aglio, 112 AD2d 440; cf. People v McEaddy, 30 NY2d 519).

We have considered the defendant’s other contentions and find them to be either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Lazer, J. P., Niehoff, Lawrence and Kooper, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

124 A.D.2d 675, 508 N.Y.S.2d 50, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 61976, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-gleixner-nyappdiv-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack