People v. Lovell

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Lovell

122 A.D.2d 78, 504 N.Y.S.2d 226, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 59147

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

DecidedJuly 7, 1986

StatusPublished

This text of 122 A.D.2d 78 (People v. Lovell) 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. Lovell, 122 A.D.2d 78, 504 N.Y.S.2d 226, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 59147 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

— Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Leone, J.), rendered November 20, 1984, convicting him of murder in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Judgment affirmed.

While the trial court erred in charging the jury that "the fact that the defendant did not testify is not a factor from which any inference unfavorable to the defendant may be drawn”, in the absence of a request for such charge by the [79]*79defendant, the error was harmless in view of the overwhelming evidence of the defendant’s guilt (see, People v Koberstein, 66 NY2d 989; People v Vereen, 45 NY2d 856, 857). We have considered all of the defendant’s other claims and find them to be without merit. Weinstein, J. P., Niehoff, Lawrence and Kooper, JJ., concur.

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

— Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Leone, J.), rendered November 20, 1984, convicting him of murder in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Judgment affirmed.

While the trial court erred in charging the jury that "the fact that the defendant did not testify is not a factor from which any inference unfavorable to the defendant may be drawn”, in the absence of a request for such charge by the [79]*79defendant, the error was harmless in view of the overwhelming evidence of the defendant’s guilt (see, People v Koberstein, 66 NY2d 989; People v Vereen, 45 NY2d 856, 857). We have considered all of the defendant’s other claims and find them to be without merit. Weinstein, J. P., Niehoff, Lawrence and Kooper, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

122 A.D.2d 78, 504 N.Y.S.2d 226, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 59147, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-lovell-nyappdiv-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack