People v. O'Neal

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. O'Neal

12 A.D.3d 620, 784 N.Y.S.2d 372, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14200

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

DecidedNovember 22, 2004

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 12 A.D.3d 620 (People v. O'Neal) 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. O'Neal, 12 A.D.3d 620, 784 N.Y.S.2d 372, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14200 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, (Rios, J.), rendered December 17, 2002, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fourth degree, and criminally using drug paraphernalia in the second degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

A trial court, in its charge, need not marshal all of the evi[621]*621dence, but must “state the material legal principles applicable to the particular case” (see CPL 300.10 [2]; see also People v James, 194 AD2d 558, 559 [1993]). Nor is the court required to explain all the contentions of the parties or outline all the inconsistencies in the evidence (see People v Snyder, 294 AD2d 381 [2002]). However, if the court does refer to the evidence, it must do so fairly and in an evenhanded manner (see People v Turton, 221 AD2d 671 [1995]).

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the trial court marshaled the evidence in an evenhanded manner and did not give undue emphasis to the People’s contentions (see People v Poey, 260 AD2d 411 [1999]). In addition, the court stressed that it held no opinion of the evidence (see People v Bacchus, 183 AD2d 720 [1992]) and would explain the law solely to assist the jurors’ understanding. Smith, J.P., Luciano, Rivera and Lifson, 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, (Rios, J.), rendered December 17, 2002, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fourth degree, and criminally using drug paraphernalia in the second degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

A trial court, in its charge, need not marshal all of the evi[621]*621dence, but must “state the material legal principles applicable to the particular case” (see CPL 300.10 [2]; see also People v James, 194 AD2d 558, 559 [1993]). Nor is the court required to explain all the contentions of the parties or outline all the inconsistencies in the evidence (see People v Snyder, 294 AD2d 381 [2002]). However, if the court does refer to the evidence, it must do so fairly and in an evenhanded manner (see People v Turton, 221 AD2d 671 [1995]).

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the trial court marshaled the evidence in an evenhanded manner and did not give undue emphasis to the People’s contentions (see People v Poey, 260 AD2d 411 [1999]). In addition, the court stressed that it held no opinion of the evidence (see People v Bacchus, 183 AD2d 720 [1992]) and would explain the law solely to assist the jurors’ understanding. Smith, J.P., Luciano, Rivera and Lifson, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

12 A.D.3d 620, 784 N.Y.S.2d 372, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14200, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-oneal-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack