People v. James

208 A.D.2d 953, 618 N.Y.S.2d 572
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in People v. James. Read the opinion of the Court — 188 A.D.2d 296

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Cirigliano, J.), rendered February 4, 1993, convicting him of burglary in the second degree and criminal mischief in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

[954]*954Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s challenge to the prosecutor’s summation remarks is unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05 [2]), and, in any event, is without merit.

Furthermore, the Trial Judge properly refused to charge the lesser-included offense of criminal trespass. No reasonable view of the evidence warranted giving the charge on criminal trespass (see, People v Henderson, 41 NY2d 233). To allow the jury to consider criminal trespass would have forced the jury "to resort to sheer speculation” (People v Scarborough, 49 NY2d 364, 371). Ritter, J. P., Copertino, Friedmann and Florio, JJ., concur.

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

People v. James, 208 A.D.2d 953, 618 N.Y.S.2d 572 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

208 A.D.2d 953 (People v. James) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

People v. Scarborough
402 N.E.2d 1127 (New York Court of Appeals, 1980)