People v. Person

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Person

124 A.D.2d 681, 508 N.Y.S.2d 56, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 61985

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

DecidedNovember 10, 1986

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 124 A.D.2d 681 (People v. Person) 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. Person, 124 A.D.2d 681, 508 N.Y.S.2d 56, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 61985 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

The sole issue raised on appeal is the propriety of the justification charge. While acknowledging that the issue was not preserved for appellate review as a matter of law, the defendant asks that we review the matter in the interest of justice, and relies on People v Wagman (99 AD2d 519) and People v Macon (110 AD2d 718).

The issue has not been preserved for appellate review and, in any event, the justification defense includes a requirement that the defendant meet an objective standard based on how a reasonable person would have acted (People v Goetz, 68 NY2d 96). Thus, the court’s charge on justification, viewed in its entirety, correctly apprised the jurors with regard to the applicable legal standard (see, People v Goetz, supra). Mollen, P. J., Weinstein, Lawrence and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.

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

The sole issue raised on appeal is the propriety of the justification charge. While acknowledging that the issue was not preserved for appellate review as a matter of law, the defendant asks that we review the matter in the interest of justice, and relies on People v Wagman (99 AD2d 519) and People v Macon (110 AD2d 718).

The issue has not been preserved for appellate review and, in any event, the justification defense includes a requirement that the defendant meet an objective standard based on how a reasonable person would have acted (People v Goetz, 68 NY2d 96). Thus, the court’s charge on justification, viewed in its entirety, correctly apprised the jurors with regard to the applicable legal standard (see, People v Goetz, supra). Mollen, P. J., Weinstein, Lawrence and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

124 A.D.2d 681, 508 N.Y.S.2d 56, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 61985, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-person-nyappdiv-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack