People v. Moyer

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Moyer

237 A.D.2d 990, 656 N.Y.S.2d 993, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3654

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

DecidedMarch 14, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 237 A.D.2d 990 (People v. Moyer) 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. Moyer, 237 A.D.2d 990, 656 N.Y.S.2d 993, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3654 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him following a jury trial of burglary in the third degree and criminal mischief in the fourth degree, defendant contends that Supreme Court’s missing witness charge was inadequate, confusing and misleading. Because defendant did not object to the charge, his contention is unpreserved for our review (see, CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Nelson, 186 AD2d 1068, lv denied 81 NY2d 764), and we decline to exercise our power to reach it as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see, CPL 470.15 [6] [a]; People v Robinson, 231 AD2d 927). (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Mark, J.— Burglary, 3rd Degree.) Present—Pine, J. P., Lawton, Doerr, Balio and Boehm, JJ.

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

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him following a jury trial of burglary in the third degree and criminal mischief in the fourth degree, defendant contends that Supreme Court’s missing witness charge was inadequate, confusing and misleading. Because defendant did not object to the charge, his contention is unpreserved for our review (see, CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Nelson, 186 AD2d 1068, lv denied 81 NY2d 764), and we decline to exercise our power to reach it as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see, CPL 470.15 [6] [a]; People v Robinson, 231 AD2d 927). (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Mark, J.— Burglary, 3rd Degree.) Present—Pine, J. P., Lawton, Doerr, Balio and Boehm, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

237 A.D.2d 990, 656 N.Y.S.2d 993, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3654, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-moyer-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack