People v. McRae

New York Court of Appeals

People v. McRae

933 N.E.2d 207, 15 N.Y.3d 761, 906 N.Y.S.2d 809

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedJuly 1, 2010

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 933 N.E.2d 207 (People v. McRae) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. McRae, 933 N.E.2d 207, 15 N.Y.3d 761, 906 N.Y.S.2d 809 (N.Y. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed. Because the accomplice testimony was corroborated with independent evidence as well as evidence that “harmonized” with the accomplice testimony, the evidence was legally sufficient to support defendant’s convictions (see People v Reome, 15 NY3d 188, 194 [2010]). Next, the trial judge did not abuse his discretion when denying defendant’s eve-of-trial application to relieve his second court-appointed attorney and to appoint substitute counsel. Finally, defendant argues that the trial judge’s failure to properly instruct the jury on the affirmative defense to Penal Law § 160.15 (4) affected the entire verdict. This claim is unpreserved for our review.

Chief Judge Lippman and Judges Ciparick, Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Jones concur.

*763 On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order affirmed in a memorandum.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed. Because the accomplice testimony was corroborated with independent evidence as well as evidence that “harmonized” with the accomplice testimony, the evidence was legally sufficient to support defendant’s convictions (see People v Reome, 15 NY3d 188, 194 [2010]). Next, the trial judge did not abuse his discretion when denying defendant’s eve-of-trial application to relieve his second court-appointed attorney and to appoint substitute counsel. Finally, defendant argues that the trial judge’s failure to properly instruct the jury on the affirmative defense to Penal Law § 160.15 (4) affected the entire verdict. This claim is unpreserved for our review.

Chief Judge Lippman and Judges Ciparick, Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Jones concur.

*763 On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order affirmed in a memorandum.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

933 N.E.2d 207, 15 N.Y.3d 761, 906 N.Y.S.2d 809, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-mcrae-ny-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack