People v. McCorkle

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. McCorkle

119 A.D.2d 701, 501 N.Y.S.2d 117, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 55623

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

DecidedApril 14, 1986

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 119 A.D.2d 701 (People v. McCorkle) 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. McCorkle, 119 A.D.2d 701, 501 N.Y.S.2d 117, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 55623 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

— Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (DiTucci, J.), rendered June 11, 1984, convicting him of robbery in the first degree and robbery in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Judgment affirmed.

The defendant did not make any requests to charge, nor did he register any objections to the court’s charge as given, even though such requests and objections were solicited by the court. Thus, he plainly failed to preserve for appellate review his present contention that the court erred in not giving a special charge on how to assess the identification testimony (People v Scott, 108 AD2d 882, 883; People v McLaughlin, 104 [702]*702AD2d 829, 830). Review in the interest of justice is unwarranted in this case, where there was substantial evidence of the defendant’s guilt independent of the identification testimony, and the defendant presented no alibi defense (see, People v Smith, 100 AD2d 857, 858). Lazer, J. P., Niehoff, Kooper and Spatt, 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, Queens County (DiTucci, J.), rendered June 11, 1984, convicting him of robbery in the first degree and robbery in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Judgment affirmed.

The defendant did not make any requests to charge, nor did he register any objections to the court’s charge as given, even though such requests and objections were solicited by the court. Thus, he plainly failed to preserve for appellate review his present contention that the court erred in not giving a special charge on how to assess the identification testimony (People v Scott, 108 AD2d 882, 883; People v McLaughlin, 104 [702]*702AD2d 829, 830). Review in the interest of justice is unwarranted in this case, where there was substantial evidence of the defendant’s guilt independent of the identification testimony, and the defendant presented no alibi defense (see, People v Smith, 100 AD2d 857, 858). Lazer, J. P., Niehoff, Kooper and Spatt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

119 A.D.2d 701, 501 N.Y.S.2d 117, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 55623, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-mccorkle-nyappdiv-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack