People v. Livingston

157 A.D.2d 859, 550 N.Y.S.2d 739, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1059
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJanuary 29, 1990
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 157 A.D.2d 859 (People v. Livingston) 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. Livingston, 157 A.D.2d 859, 550 N.Y.S.2d 739, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1059 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Owens, J.), rendered June 24, 1987, convicting him of murder in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law and as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, and a new trial is ordered. The facts have been considered and determined to have been established.

The circumstantial evidence charge given by the trial court failed to include language which clearly conveyed the concept that the evidence must exclude beyond a reasonable doubt every reasonable hypothesis of innocence (see, People v Ford, 66 NY2d 428; People v Sanchez, 61 NY2d 1022). Although we find that the proof of the defendant’s guilt was legally sufficient to sustain the.verdict, it was not overwhelming. Consequently, the court’s failure to properly instruct the jury on the reasoning process to be followed cannot be considered harmless error, and reversal and a new trial are required (see, People v Ford, supra; People v Tsotselashvili, 135 AD2d 759; People v Perrotta, 121 AD2d 659).

The court submitted a verdict sheet to the jury which described some of the elements of the crimes charged. Although the defendant failed to object to its submission, since there must be a retrial and proof of the defendant’s guilt was not overwhelming, we reach this issue in the interest of justice and find that the verdict sheet was improper (see, People v Nimmons, 72 NY2d 830; People v McKenzie, 148 AD2d 472; People v Testaverde, 143 AD2d 208). Mollen, P. J., Mangano, Kunzeman and Kooper, JJ., concur.

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

Related

People v. LaGuerre
29 A.D.3d 820 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)
People v. Davis
244 A.D.2d 418 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1997)
Livingston v. State
229 A.D.2d 477 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1996)
People v. Johnson
207 A.D.2d 678 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1994)
People v. Marsalis
189 A.D.2d 897 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1993)
People v. Rawlins
166 A.D.2d 64 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1991)
People v. Sotomayer
173 A.D.2d 500 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1991)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
157 A.D.2d 859, 550 N.Y.S.2d 739, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1059, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-livingston-nyappdiv-1990.