People v. Malave

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Malave

114 A.D.2d 376, 493 N.Y.S.2d 894, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 53056

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

DecidedOctober 7, 1985

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 114 A.D.2d 376 (People v. Malave) 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. Malave, 114 A.D.2d 376, 493 N.Y.S.2d 894, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 53056 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Kay, J.), rendered May 7, 1982, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Judgment affirmed.

Defendant argues on appeal that the trial court’s charge was deficient because the jury was not informed that he had to share his coperpetrator’s intent to commit a robbery with a gun. However, defendant made no objection to the Judge’s charge and, therefore, the alleged error has not been preserved, for our review (see, People v Thomas, 50 NY2d 467; CPL 470.05 [2]). In any event, we find that the Trial Judge’s charge was in conformity with Penal Law § 160.15 and no error was committed. The People need not establish that defendant knew his coperpetrator intended to use a deadly weapon (see, People v Parker, 97 AD2d 943; cf. People v Gomez, 87 AD2d 829). O’Connor, J. P., Rubin, Eiber and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.

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

—Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Kay, J.), rendered May 7, 1982, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Judgment affirmed.

Defendant argues on appeal that the trial court’s charge was deficient because the jury was not informed that he had to share his coperpetrator’s intent to commit a robbery with a gun. However, defendant made no objection to the Judge’s charge and, therefore, the alleged error has not been preserved, for our review (see, People v Thomas, 50 NY2d 467; CPL 470.05 [2]). In any event, we find that the Trial Judge’s charge was in conformity with Penal Law § 160.15 and no error was committed. The People need not establish that defendant knew his coperpetrator intended to use a deadly weapon (see, People v Parker, 97 AD2d 943; cf. People v Gomez, 87 AD2d 829). O’Connor, J. P., Rubin, Eiber and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

114 A.D.2d 376, 493 N.Y.S.2d 894, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 53056, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-malave-nyappdiv-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack