People v. Luyanda

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Luyanda

184 A.D.2d 791

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

DecidedJune 29, 1992

StatusPublished

This text of 184 A.D.2d 791 (People v. Luyanda) 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. Luyanda, 184 A.D.2d 791 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hall, J.), rendered November 13, 1990, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

As the defendant failed to object to the court’s oral supplemental charge on criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, his claim that the trial court should have submitted written instructions to the jury is unpreserved for appellate review (see, People v Bynum, 70 NY2d 858; People v Crum, 175 AD2d 136). In view of the overwhelming evidence of the defendant’s guilt, we decline to address the defendant’s contention in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction (see, CPL 470.15 [6]). Thompson, J. P., Miller, Copertino and Pizzuto, 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 (Hall, J.), rendered November 13, 1990, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

As the defendant failed to object to the court’s oral supplemental charge on criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, his claim that the trial court should have submitted written instructions to the jury is unpreserved for appellate review (see, People v Bynum, 70 NY2d 858; People v Crum, 175 AD2d 136). In view of the overwhelming evidence of the defendant’s guilt, we decline to address the defendant’s contention in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction (see, CPL 470.15 [6]). Thompson, J. P., Miller, Copertino and Pizzuto, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

184 A.D.2d 791, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-luyanda-nyappdiv-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack