People v. Holmes

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Holmes

108 A.D.2d 1016, 486 N.Y.S.2d 707, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 43343

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

DecidedFebruary 21, 1985

StatusPublished

This text of 108 A.D.2d 1016 (People v. Holmes) 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. Holmes, 108 A.D.2d 1016, 486 N.Y.S.2d 707, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 43343 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Greene County (Fromer, J.), rendered March 9, 1982, upon a verdict convicting defendant of the crimes of conspiracy in the third degree, grand larceny in the third degree and offering a false instrument for filing in the first degree (six counts).

The facts of the case are fully set forth in the decision disposing of the appeal taken by defendant’s codefendant {People v Nicholos, 108 AD2d 1015). The sole issue raised on this appeal is the trial court’s failure to effectively marshal the evidence in its charge to the jury. Since defendant failed to object to the charge on this ground, the issue has not been preserved for review (CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Coker, 90 AD2d 958; People v Dasch, 79 AD2d 877, 878).

Judgment affirmed. Mahoney, P. J., Weiss, Mikoll, Yesawich, Jr., and Harvey, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Greene County (Fromer, J.), rendered March 9, 1982, upon a verdict convicting defendant of the crimes of conspiracy in the third degree, grand larceny in the third degree and offering a false instrument for filing in the first degree (six counts).

The facts of the case are fully set forth in the decision disposing of the appeal taken by defendant’s codefendant {People v Nicholos, 108 AD2d 1015). The sole issue raised on this appeal is the trial court’s failure to effectively marshal the evidence in its charge to the jury. Since defendant failed to object to the charge on this ground, the issue has not been preserved for review (CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Coker, 90 AD2d 958; People v Dasch, 79 AD2d 877, 878).

Judgment affirmed. Mahoney, P. J., Weiss, Mikoll, Yesawich, Jr., and Harvey, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

108 A.D.2d 1016, 486 N.Y.S.2d 707, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 43343, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-holmes-nyappdiv-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack