People v. Hop-Wah

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Hop-Wah

138 A.D.2d 955, 526 N.Y.S.2d 411, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2661

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

DecidedMarch 4, 1988

StatusPublished

This text of 138 A.D.2d 955 (People v. Hop-Wah) 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. Hop-Wah, 138 A.D.2d 955, 526 N.Y.S.2d 411, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2661 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment unanimously [956]*956modified on the law and as modified affirmed, in accordance with the following memorandum: The People concede that the trial court erred by refusing to charge the lesser included offense of attempted assault in the second degree with respect to the charges contained in the first two counts of the indictment. We agree and, accordingly, modify the judgment to reverse the convictions on those two counts, vacate the sentences imposed thereon, and grant a new trial on those counts.

We affirm defendant’s conviction on the third count of the indictment. On appeal, defendant raises no claim that the court should have charged any lesser included offense as to this count, and any such claim would lack merit. Defendant’s contentions that the court erred in its instruction to the jury as to intent and that the District Attorney erred by failing to instruct the Grand Jury on the defense of justification also lack merit (see, People v Getch, 50 NY2d 456; People v Calbud, Inc., 49 NY2d 389). The remaining issue was not preserved for our review. (Appeal from judgment of Wyoming County Court, Newman, J.—assault, second degree.) Present—Callahan, J. P., Doerr, Denman, Green and Balio, JJ.

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

Judgment unanimously [956]*956modified on the law and as modified affirmed, in accordance with the following memorandum: The People concede that the trial court erred by refusing to charge the lesser included offense of attempted assault in the second degree with respect to the charges contained in the first two counts of the indictment. We agree and, accordingly, modify the judgment to reverse the convictions on those two counts, vacate the sentences imposed thereon, and grant a new trial on those counts.

We affirm defendant’s conviction on the third count of the indictment. On appeal, defendant raises no claim that the court should have charged any lesser included offense as to this count, and any such claim would lack merit. Defendant’s contentions that the court erred in its instruction to the jury as to intent and that the District Attorney erred by failing to instruct the Grand Jury on the defense of justification also lack merit (see, People v Getch, 50 NY2d 456; People v Calbud, Inc., 49 NY2d 389). The remaining issue was not preserved for our review. (Appeal from judgment of Wyoming County Court, Newman, J.—assault, second degree.) Present—Callahan, J. P., Doerr, Denman, Green and Balio, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

138 A.D.2d 955, 526 N.Y.S.2d 411, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2661, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-hop-wah-nyappdiv-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack