People v. Mattson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Mattson

192 A.D.2d 448, 597 N.Y.S.2d 593, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3998

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

DecidedApril 22, 1993

StatusPublished

This text of 192 A.D.2d 448 (People v. Mattson) 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. Mattson, 192 A.D.2d 448, 597 N.Y.S.2d 593, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3998 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward McLaughlin, J.), rendered November 22, 1989, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of assault in the second degree, and sentencing him to an indeterminate term of 2 to 6 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s claim that the trial court improperly charged the jury in its supplemental instructions is unpreserved for review (CPL 470.05 [2]), and we decline to review in the interest of justice. Were we to review, the error, if any, would not warrant reversal in view of the overwhelming evidence of defendant’s participation in the assault (see, People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230), and the fact that the court, in its initial charge, repeatedly emphasized the People’s obligation with respect to the elements necessary to establish accomplice liability. Concur — Milonas, J. P., Ellerin, Asch, Kassal and Rubin, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward McLaughlin, J.), rendered November 22, 1989, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of assault in the second degree, and sentencing him to an indeterminate term of 2 to 6 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s claim that the trial court improperly charged the jury in its supplemental instructions is unpreserved for review (CPL 470.05 [2]), and we decline to review in the interest of justice. Were we to review, the error, if any, would not warrant reversal in view of the overwhelming evidence of defendant’s participation in the assault (see, People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230), and the fact that the court, in its initial charge, repeatedly emphasized the People’s obligation with respect to the elements necessary to establish accomplice liability. Concur — Milonas, J. P., Ellerin, Asch, Kassal and Rubin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

192 A.D.2d 448, 597 N.Y.S.2d 593, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3998, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-mattson-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack