People v. Gonzalez

97 A.D.2d 423, 467 N.Y.S.2d 260, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 19998
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided October 3, 1983·Published·Cited by 11 cases

Opinion

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (Floyd, J.), rendered July 15,1982, convicting him of burglary in the second degree (two counts) and assault in the second degree (two counts); upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. Judgment affirmed. Defendant’s conviction arose out of an incident which occurred on January 17, 1981 in Lake Ronkonkoma, New York. The complainant testified that defendant, whom she had known since July, 1979, was one of two men who broke into her home, beat her up and ransacked the premises. The defendant took the stand and testified that at the time of the crime he was with a friend at Sterling Optical in Astoria, Queens, picking up a pair of eyeglasses. On the instant appeal, defendant contends that the court’s alibi charge was improper. It is true, as defendant asserts, that the court failed to instruct the jury that even if they disbelieved the alibi defense, the People still had the burden of proving defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. In this regard, the charge was inadequate (see People v Vera, 94 AD2d 728; People v Knowell, 94 AD2d 255). However, no objection was interposed by the defense to the charge and, accordingly, it has not been preserved for appellate review as a matter of law (People v King, 91 AD2d 1073; People v Smith, 87 AD2d 640). Nor do the circumstances of this case warrant a reversal in the interest of justice. Finally, it should be noted that the prosecution, during cross-examination of defendant, insinuated that defendant could have called either his friend or the optician as alibi witnesses. However, a defendant “is under no duty to call witnesses and his failure to do so should be free of comment” (People v La Susa, 87 AD2d 578, 579). Accordingly, these remarks by the prosecutor were improper, and while they are insufficient under the facts of this case to warrant a reversal, they should not be repeated in the future. Mollen, P. J., Mangano, Thompson and Niehoff, JJ., concur.

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

People v. Gonzalez, 97 A.D.2d 423, 467 N.Y.S.2d 260, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 19998 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1983).

97 A.D.2d 423 (People v. Gonzalez) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

People v. Wood
271 A.D.2d 705 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)
People v. Fisher
147 A.D.2d 948 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1989)
People v. Toussaint
133 A.D.2d 869 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1987)
People v. Ortiz
120 A.D.2d 550 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1986)
People v. Lopez
109 A.D.2d 805 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1985)
People v. McCright
107 A.D.2d 766 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1985)
People v. Nelson
104 A.D.2d 1010 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1984)
People v. Spruill
103 A.D.2d 785 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1984)
People v. Herbert
100 A.D.2d 883 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1984)
People v. Rudd
100 A.D.2d 857 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1984)