People v. Nimmons

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Nimmons

222 A.D.2d 704, 635 N.Y.S.2d 675, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13940

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

DecidedDecember 29, 1995

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 222 A.D.2d 704 (People v. Nimmons) 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. Nimmons, 222 A.D.2d 704, 635 N.Y.S.2d 675, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13940 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Corrado, J.), rendered October 19, 1994, convicting him of criminal mischief in the third degree, petit larceny, and unauthorized use of a vehicle in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant contends that the trial court erred in failing to charge the jury on the issue of identification. The defendant [705]*705made no requests for an identification charge and, at the conclusion of the court’s charge, the defendant did not take exception to the charge or ask for additional instructions even though the court solicited such exceptions and requests. Thus, he plainly failed to preserve the issue for appellate review (see, People v McCorkle, 119 AD2d 700). Nor is reversal warranted in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction. The evidence elicited at trial did not present a close question of identification. Therefore, the trial court’s charge was legally sufficient (see, People v Whalen, 59 NY2d 273; People v Bishop, 144 AD2d 476). Copertino, J. P., Pizzuto, Santucci and Joy, 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 (Corrado, J.), rendered October 19, 1994, convicting him of criminal mischief in the third degree, petit larceny, and unauthorized use of a vehicle in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant contends that the trial court erred in failing to charge the jury on the issue of identification. The defendant [705]*705made no requests for an identification charge and, at the conclusion of the court’s charge, the defendant did not take exception to the charge or ask for additional instructions even though the court solicited such exceptions and requests. Thus, he plainly failed to preserve the issue for appellate review (see, People v McCorkle, 119 AD2d 700). Nor is reversal warranted in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction. The evidence elicited at trial did not present a close question of identification. Therefore, the trial court’s charge was legally sufficient (see, People v Whalen, 59 NY2d 273; People v Bishop, 144 AD2d 476). Copertino, J. P., Pizzuto, Santucci and Joy, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

222 A.D.2d 704, 635 N.Y.S.2d 675, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13940, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-nimmons-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack