People v. Gonzalez

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Gonzalez

157 A.D.2d 591, 550 N.Y.S.2d 338, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 722

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

DecidedJanuary 25, 1990

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 157 A.D.2d 591 (People v. Gonzalez) 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. Gonzalez, 157 A.D.2d 591, 550 N.Y.S.2d 338, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 722 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment of the Supreme Court, New York County (Budd Goodman, J.), rendered June 24, 1987, convicting defendant, after jury trial, of attempted robbery in the first degree and sentencing him to an indeterminate term of from 1 Vi to 4 V2 years’ imprisonment, unanimously affirmed.

This prosecution arises out of an attempted street robbery. There is nothing incredible about the victim’s trial testimony as compared to his statement to the police on the evening of the incident. Any discrepancies were presented to the jury for its consideration (People v Mosley, 112 AD2d 812, 814, affd 67 NY2d 985), and defendant presents no reason to disturb the jury’s verdict of guilt.

In marshaling the evidence, the trial court’s charge does not present any grounds for reversal. No objection was taken to this aspect of the charge. Therefore, this issue is not preserved for review (CPL 470.05 [2]), and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to consider the issue, we would find that the charge was proper. The court fairly marshaled the evidence and did not violate CPL 300.10 (2). Both sides of the case were presented to the jury in an accurate and unbiased manner. Concur—Ellerin, J. P., Wallach, Smith and Rubin, JJ.

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

Judgment of the Supreme Court, New York County (Budd Goodman, J.), rendered June 24, 1987, convicting defendant, after jury trial, of attempted robbery in the first degree and sentencing him to an indeterminate term of from 1 Vi to 4 V2 years’ imprisonment, unanimously affirmed.

This prosecution arises out of an attempted street robbery. There is nothing incredible about the victim’s trial testimony as compared to his statement to the police on the evening of the incident. Any discrepancies were presented to the jury for its consideration (People v Mosley, 112 AD2d 812, 814, affd 67 NY2d 985), and defendant presents no reason to disturb the jury’s verdict of guilt.

In marshaling the evidence, the trial court’s charge does not present any grounds for reversal. No objection was taken to this aspect of the charge. Therefore, this issue is not preserved for review (CPL 470.05 [2]), and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to consider the issue, we would find that the charge was proper. The court fairly marshaled the evidence and did not violate CPL 300.10 (2). Both sides of the case were presented to the jury in an accurate and unbiased manner. Concur—Ellerin, J. P., Wallach, Smith and Rubin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

157 A.D.2d 591, 550 N.Y.S.2d 338, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 722, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-gonzalez-nyappdiv-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack