People v. Lilley

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Lilley

96 A.D.2d 714, 465 N.Y.S.2d 369, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 19274

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

DecidedJuly 11, 1983

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 96 A.D.2d 714 (People v. Lilley) 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. Lilley, 96 A.D.2d 714, 465 N.Y.S.2d 369, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 19274 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1983).

Pincite

Opinion

— Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: On his appeal from convictions for attempted murder in the second degree of one victim and murder in the second degree of another, defendant argues, among other things, that there should be a reversal and a new trial because the court’s charge offended the rule in Sandstrom v Montana (442 US 510) even though the error was not preserved for review (see People v Thomas, 50 NY2d 467, 472). We disagree. In the first place, we do not read Connecticut v Johnson (460 US_, 103 S Ct 969) as requiring us to reach the unpreserved issue as a matter of discretion pursuant to-CPL 470.15 (subd 6). Even if we were to reach the issue, we would affirm because the charge is identical to that given in People v Gray (71 AD2d 295, 298-299) which we held was not contrary to Sandstrom. We have examined defendant’s other contentions and find no basis for reversal. (Appeal from judgment of Supreme Court, Erie County, Doyle, J. — murder, second degree, and attempted murder, second degree.) Present — Hancock, Jr., J. P., Callahan, Denman, Green and Moule, JJ.

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

— Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: On his appeal from convictions for attempted murder in the second degree of one victim and murder in the second degree of another, defendant argues, among other things, that there should be a reversal and a new trial because the court’s charge offended the rule in Sandstrom v Montana (442 US 510) even though the error was not preserved for review (see People v Thomas, 50 NY2d 467, 472). We disagree. In the first place, we do not read Connecticut v Johnson (460 US_, 103 S Ct 969) as requiring us to reach the unpreserved issue as a matter of discretion pursuant to-CPL 470.15 (subd 6). Even if we were to reach the issue, we would affirm because the charge is identical to that given in People v Gray (71 AD2d 295, 298-299) which we held was not contrary to Sandstrom. We have examined defendant’s other contentions and find no basis for reversal. (Appeal from judgment of Supreme Court, Erie County, Doyle, J. — murder, second degree, and attempted murder, second degree.) Present — Hancock, Jr., J. P., Callahan, Denman, Green and Moule, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

96 A.D.2d 714, 465 N.Y.S.2d 369, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 19274, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-lilley-nyappdiv-1983.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack