People v. Hough

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Hough

261 A.D.2d 238, 687 N.Y.S.2d 899, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5515

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

DecidedMay 18, 1999

StatusPublished

This text of 261 A.D.2d 238 (People v. Hough) 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. Hough, 261 A.D.2d 238, 687 N.Y.S.2d 899, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5515 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Jeffrey Atlas, J.), rendered August 7, 1996, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of robbery in the first degree, and sentencing him to a term of 6 to 12 years, unanimously affirmed.

The victim’s identification of defendant as one of the persons who robbed his store took place in the store, one month after that initial robbery, when defendant was being arrested for robbing it again. Under these circumstances, the court struck an appropriate balance (see, People v Ventimiglia, 52 NY2d 350) by permitting the prosecution to reveal simply that defendant was being arrested for a crime. Moreover, the court’s limiting instructions prevented any undue prejudice to defendant.

Defendant did not preserve his challenge to the court’s charge on the jury’s duty not to draw negative inferences from defendant’s failure to testify, and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review this claim, we would find that the charge was unnecessarily lengthy but not unduly prejudicial.

The court’s supplemental instruction, when read as a whole and with particular reference to the court’s admonitions against speculation, was a proper response to inquiries from the deliberating jury concerning a matter not in evidence (see, People v Malloy, 55 NY2d 296). Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Williams, Rubin, Mazzarelli and Friedman, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Jeffrey Atlas, J.), rendered August 7, 1996, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of robbery in the first degree, and sentencing him to a term of 6 to 12 years, unanimously affirmed.

The victim’s identification of defendant as one of the persons who robbed his store took place in the store, one month after that initial robbery, when defendant was being arrested for robbing it again. Under these circumstances, the court struck an appropriate balance (see, People v Ventimiglia, 52 NY2d 350) by permitting the prosecution to reveal simply that defendant was being arrested for a crime. Moreover, the court’s limiting instructions prevented any undue prejudice to defendant.

Defendant did not preserve his challenge to the court’s charge on the jury’s duty not to draw negative inferences from defendant’s failure to testify, and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review this claim, we would find that the charge was unnecessarily lengthy but not unduly prejudicial.

The court’s supplemental instruction, when read as a whole and with particular reference to the court’s admonitions against speculation, was a proper response to inquiries from the deliberating jury concerning a matter not in evidence (see, People v Malloy, 55 NY2d 296). Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Williams, Rubin, Mazzarelli and Friedman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

261 A.D.2d 238, 687 N.Y.S.2d 899, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5515, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-hough-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack