People v. Izzo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Izzo

158 A.D.2d 717, 551 N.Y.S.2d 858, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2226

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

DecidedFebruary 26, 1990

StatusPublished

This text of 158 A.D.2d 717 (People v. Izzo) 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. Izzo, 158 A.D.2d 717, 551 N.Y.S.2d 858, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2226 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

We find the defendant’s contention that reversal is warranted because of certain improprieties committed by the trial court to be meritless. The defendant did not object to the court’s charge on circumstantial evidence and, accordingly, this claim of error is unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Edwards, 147 AD2d 586). In any event, a review of the record shows that the circumstantial [718]*718evidence charge delivered by the court, when read as a whole, adequately stated the principles of law necessary to permit the jury to properly evaluate the evidence (see, People v Ellis, 146 AD2d 709).

Additionally, the defendant failed to object when the trial court struck the testimony of the defendant’s expert witness and, therefore, this claim is not preserved for appellate review as a matter of law (see, CPL 470.05 [2]).

We also find the defendant’s claim that his due process rights were violated by unreasonable preindictment delay to be without merit. The delay was necessitated by the tedious process of checking the defendant’s fingerprints with thousands of others. Additionally, we conclude that the defendant was not deprived of a speedy trial in violation of CPL 30.30 since the statutory period was not exceeded.

We have reviewed the defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Mollen, P. J., Brown, Kooper and Miller, JJ., concur.

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

We find the defendant’s contention that reversal is warranted because of certain improprieties committed by the trial court to be meritless. The defendant did not object to the court’s charge on circumstantial evidence and, accordingly, this claim of error is unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Edwards, 147 AD2d 586). In any event, a review of the record shows that the circumstantial [718]*718evidence charge delivered by the court, when read as a whole, adequately stated the principles of law necessary to permit the jury to properly evaluate the evidence (see, People v Ellis, 146 AD2d 709).

Additionally, the defendant failed to object when the trial court struck the testimony of the defendant’s expert witness and, therefore, this claim is not preserved for appellate review as a matter of law (see, CPL 470.05 [2]).

We also find the defendant’s claim that his due process rights were violated by unreasonable preindictment delay to be without merit. The delay was necessitated by the tedious process of checking the defendant’s fingerprints with thousands of others. Additionally, we conclude that the defendant was not deprived of a speedy trial in violation of CPL 30.30 since the statutory period was not exceeded.

We have reviewed the defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Mollen, P. J., Brown, Kooper and Miller, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

158 A.D.2d 717, 551 N.Y.S.2d 858, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2226, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-izzo-nyappdiv-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack