People v. Henry

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Henry

200 A.D.2d 586, 608 N.Y.S.2d 847

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

DecidedJanuary 10, 1994

StatusPublished

This text of 200 A.D.2d 586 (People v. Henry) 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. Henry, 200 A.D.2d 586, 608 N.Y.S.2d 847 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Katz, J.), rendered June 17, 1992, convicting him of grand larceny in the fourth degree and criminal possession of stolen property in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that the trial court’s circumstantial evidence charge was erroneous is unpreserved for appellate review since the defendant neither objected to the charge nor requested any further instructions with regard to it (see, People v Band, 125 AD2d 683, 686). In any event, we find that the charge, read as a whole, adequately stated the principles of law necessary to allow the jury to properly evaluate the evidence (see, People v Woods, 41 NY2d 279, 283; People v Douglas, 118 AD2d 722, 723). Bracken, J. P., Sullivan, Miller and Lawrence, JJ., concur.

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

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Katz, J.), rendered June 17, 1992, convicting him of grand larceny in the fourth degree and criminal possession of stolen property in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that the trial court’s circumstantial evidence charge was erroneous is unpreserved for appellate review since the defendant neither objected to the charge nor requested any further instructions with regard to it (see, People v Band, 125 AD2d 683, 686). In any event, we find that the charge, read as a whole, adequately stated the principles of law necessary to allow the jury to properly evaluate the evidence (see, People v Woods, 41 NY2d 279, 283; People v Douglas, 118 AD2d 722, 723). Bracken, J. P., Sullivan, Miller and Lawrence, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

200 A.D.2d 586, 608 N.Y.S.2d 847, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-henry-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack