People v. Higgins

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Higgins

118 A.D.2d 585, 499 N.Y.S.2d 190, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 54441

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

DecidedMarch 3, 1986

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 118 A.D.2d 585 (People v. Higgins) 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. Higgins, 118 A.D.2d 585, 499 N.Y.S.2d 190, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 54441 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

— Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Chetta, J.), rendered March 22, 1983, convicting him of bur[586]*586glary in the second degree and robbery in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Judgment affirmed.

The defendant’s claim of error, that the trial court failed to charge the jury on the issue of identification, has not been preserved for appellate review because no exception was taken to the charge at trial (see, CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620; cf. People v Smith, 100 AD2d 857). In light of the circumstances of this case, which included strong identification testimony by a complaining witness who had known the defendant for a period of 14 years, we decline to exercise our interest of justice jurisdiction. Additionally, we find that the sentence imposed was appropriate under the circumstances of this case (see, People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80). Bracken, J. P., Niehoff, Rubin 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 (Chetta, J.), rendered March 22, 1983, convicting him of bur[586]*586glary in the second degree and robbery in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Judgment affirmed.

The defendant’s claim of error, that the trial court failed to charge the jury on the issue of identification, has not been preserved for appellate review because no exception was taken to the charge at trial (see, CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620; cf. People v Smith, 100 AD2d 857). In light of the circumstances of this case, which included strong identification testimony by a complaining witness who had known the defendant for a period of 14 years, we decline to exercise our interest of justice jurisdiction. Additionally, we find that the sentence imposed was appropriate under the circumstances of this case (see, People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80). Bracken, J. P., Niehoff, Rubin and Lawrence, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

118 A.D.2d 585, 499 N.Y.S.2d 190, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 54441, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-higgins-nyappdiv-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack