People v. Lara

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Lara

224 A.D.2d 332, 638 N.Y.S.2d 455, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1476

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

DecidedFebruary 27, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 224 A.D.2d 332 (People v. Lara) 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. Lara, 224 A.D.2d 332, 638 N.Y.S.2d 455, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1476 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Daniel FitzGerald, J.), rendered April 7, 1994, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of burglary in the second degree and possession of burglar’s tools, and sentencing him, as a second violent felony offender, to concurrent prison terms of l1!2 to 15 years and 1 year, respectively, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s claim that the court’s instruction to the jury that they "should try very hard to come to an agreement that would speak the truth as far as the facts in this case are concerned” impermissibly shifted the burden of proof is unpreserved for appellate review as a matter of law (CPL 470.05 [2]; see, People v Hill, 209 AD2d 224, lv denied 84 NY2d 1012), and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review it, although we disapprove of such language, we would find the claim to be without merit since the charge, as a whole, conveyed the proper standards concerning the People’s burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt (People v Huynh, 215 AD2d 168). Concur — Murphy, P. J., Ross, Tom and Mazzarelli, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Daniel FitzGerald, J.), rendered April 7, 1994, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of burglary in the second degree and possession of burglar’s tools, and sentencing him, as a second violent felony offender, to concurrent prison terms of l1!2 to 15 years and 1 year, respectively, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s claim that the court’s instruction to the jury that they "should try very hard to come to an agreement that would speak the truth as far as the facts in this case are concerned” impermissibly shifted the burden of proof is unpreserved for appellate review as a matter of law (CPL 470.05 [2]; see, People v Hill, 209 AD2d 224, lv denied 84 NY2d 1012), and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review it, although we disapprove of such language, we would find the claim to be without merit since the charge, as a whole, conveyed the proper standards concerning the People’s burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt (People v Huynh, 215 AD2d 168). Concur — Murphy, P. J., Ross, Tom and Mazzarelli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

224 A.D.2d 332, 638 N.Y.S.2d 455, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1476, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-lara-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack