People v. Percinthe

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Percinthe

200 A.D.2d 773, 607 N.Y.S.2d 370

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

DecidedJanuary 31, 1994

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 200 A.D.2d 773 (People v. Percinthe) 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. Percinthe, 200 A.D.2d 773, 607 N.Y.S.2d 370 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Lipp, J.), rendered September 5, 1991, convicting him of robbery in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, and a new trial is ordered. The facts have been considered and are determined to have been established.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People (see, People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power we are satisfied that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15 [5]).

Reversal is required, however, based upon the court’s submission of a verdict sheet which included the words "aided” and "display” following the two counts of robbery in the [774]*774second degree. A trial court may not give a jury a verdict sheet that, in addition to listing the counts (see, CPL 310.20 [2]), also lists some of the statutory elements of the counts (see, People v Spivey, 81 NY2d 356; People v Kelly, 76 NY2d 1013; People v Nimmons, 72 NY2d 830; People v Vargas [Raymond], 199 AD2d 291).

We find no merit to the defendant’s remaining contentions. Miller, J. P., O’Brien, Ritter and Krausman, 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, Kings County (Lipp, J.), rendered September 5, 1991, convicting him of robbery in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, and a new trial is ordered. The facts have been considered and are determined to have been established.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People (see, People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power we are satisfied that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15 [5]).

Reversal is required, however, based upon the court’s submission of a verdict sheet which included the words "aided” and "display” following the two counts of robbery in the [774]*774second degree. A trial court may not give a jury a verdict sheet that, in addition to listing the counts (see, CPL 310.20 [2]), also lists some of the statutory elements of the counts (see, People v Spivey, 81 NY2d 356; People v Kelly, 76 NY2d 1013; People v Nimmons, 72 NY2d 830; People v Vargas [Raymond], 199 AD2d 291).

We find no merit to the defendant’s remaining contentions. Miller, J. P., O’Brien, Ritter and Krausman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

200 A.D.2d 773, 607 N.Y.S.2d 370, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-percinthe-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack