People v. Perry

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Perry

223 A.D.2d 479, 637 N.Y.S.2d 75, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 570

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

DecidedJanuary 25, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 223 A.D.2d 479 (People v. Perry) 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. Perry, 223 A.D.2d 479, 637 N.Y.S.2d 75, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 570 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Dorothy Cropper, J.), rendered December 19, 1994, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of attempted robbery in the first degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 4½ to 9 years, unanimously affirmed.

The court’s refusal to instruct the jury on how to treat evidence of flight was proper in view of the proof adduced. The court properly declined to give a "two-inference” charge that had the potential for confusing the jury as to the burden of proof. Defendant not having testified, the court also properly excluded evidence that defendant said to his pursuers, "Why are you chasing me?” Were we to review defendant’s unpreserved argument that this was admissible for its relevance to defendant’s state of mind, we would find that defendant’s alleged "question” to his pursuers was essentially a factual assertion of innocence, inadmissible as hearsay (see, People v Reynoso, 73 NY2d 816, 819). Concur—Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Wallach, Kupferman and Ross, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Dorothy Cropper, J.), rendered December 19, 1994, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of attempted robbery in the first degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 4½ to 9 years, unanimously affirmed.

The court’s refusal to instruct the jury on how to treat evidence of flight was proper in view of the proof adduced. The court properly declined to give a "two-inference” charge that had the potential for confusing the jury as to the burden of proof. Defendant not having testified, the court also properly excluded evidence that defendant said to his pursuers, "Why are you chasing me?” Were we to review defendant’s unpreserved argument that this was admissible for its relevance to defendant’s state of mind, we would find that defendant’s alleged "question” to his pursuers was essentially a factual assertion of innocence, inadmissible as hearsay (see, People v Reynoso, 73 NY2d 816, 819). Concur—Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Wallach, Kupferman and Ross, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

223 A.D.2d 479, 637 N.Y.S.2d 75, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 570, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-perry-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack