People v. Moore

New York Court of Appeals

People v. Moore

934 N.E.2d 879, 15 N.Y.3d 811

New York Court of Appeals·Decided September 2, 2010·Published·Cited by 94 cases

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed. Defendant Isham Moore failed to establish that his attorney provided ineffective assistance because of her failure to request a justification charge. There are sound strategic reasons for counsel’s decision not to request such a charge. And even if this were not the case, defendant cannot show that he was entitled to a justification charge under any favorable interpretation of the testimony presented at trial.

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

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. Defendant Isham Moore failed to establish that his attorney provided ineffective assistance because of her failure to request a justification charge. There are sound strategic reasons for counsel’s decision not to request such a charge. And even if this were not the case, defendant cannot show that he was entitled to a justification charge under any favorable interpretation of the testimony presented at trial.

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

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.

People v. Moore, 934 N.E.2d 879, 15 N.Y.3d 811 (N.Y. 2010).

Pincite

934 N.E.2d 879 (People v. Moore) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related