People v. Healey

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Healey

155 A.D.2d 949, 549 N.Y.S.2d 616, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14817

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

DecidedNovember 15, 1989

StatusPublished

This text of 155 A.D.2d 949 (People v. Healey) 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. Healey, 155 A.D.2d 949, 549 N.Y.S.2d 616, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14817 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

— Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Although defendant correctly argues that the court erred in charging the jury to draw no adverse inference from his failure to testify because defense counsel did not request such a charge (CPL 300.10 [2]; see, People v Mullally, 147 AD2d 904, lv denied 73 NY2d 980; People v Gonzalez, 145 AD2d 923, lv denied 73 NY2d 1015), we disagree with his contention that reversal is required. The issue is unpreserved, and we decline to reach it in the interest of justice; the proof of defendant’s guilt was overwhelming, and defense counsel himself made this statement of law on summation.

We have examined defendant’s remaining contentions and find them lacking in merit. (Appeal from judgment of Onondaga County Court, Mulroy, J. — robbery, first degree, and other charges.) Present — Boomer, J. P., Green, Pine, Balio and Davis, JJ.

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

— Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Although defendant correctly argues that the court erred in charging the jury to draw no adverse inference from his failure to testify because defense counsel did not request such a charge (CPL 300.10 [2]; see, People v Mullally, 147 AD2d 904, lv denied 73 NY2d 980; People v Gonzalez, 145 AD2d 923, lv denied 73 NY2d 1015), we disagree with his contention that reversal is required. The issue is unpreserved, and we decline to reach it in the interest of justice; the proof of defendant’s guilt was overwhelming, and defense counsel himself made this statement of law on summation.

We have examined defendant’s remaining contentions and find them lacking in merit. (Appeal from judgment of Onondaga County Court, Mulroy, J. — robbery, first degree, and other charges.) Present — Boomer, J. P., Green, Pine, Balio and Davis, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

155 A.D.2d 949, 549 N.Y.S.2d 616, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14817, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-healey-nyappdiv-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack