People v. Pilbeam

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Pilbeam

143 A.D.2d 498, 532 N.Y.S.2d 951, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10638

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

DecidedSeptember 27, 1988

StatusPublished

This text of 143 A.D.2d 498 (People v. Pilbeam) 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. Pilbeam, 143 A.D.2d 498, 532 N.Y.S.2d 951, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10638 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment unanimously reversed on the law and new trial granted. Memorandum: Defendant contends that the trial court erred in its charge concerning the defense of mental disease or defect. We agree. Since defendant raised the insanity defense, the People were required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant knew the nature and consequences of his acts and that he knew the acts were wrong (Penal Law former § 30.05 [1]; People v Moore, 132 AD2d 963, 964). This charge should be clear and unambiguous (People v Young, 65 NY2d 103, 109). The court, on numerous occasions during its charge, incorrectly stated the applicable law. Because the court failed to instruct the jury clearly on this crucial issue, reversal is mandated (People v Young, supra; People v Kelly, 302 NY 512, 515-517; People v Moore, supra; People v Buthy, 38 AD2d 10). (Appeal from judgment of Monroe County Court, Provenzano, J. — murder, second degree; grand larceny, second degree; robbery, first degree; conspiracy, second degree.) Present — Dillon, P. J., Callahan, Green, Balio and Lawton, JJ.

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

Judgment unanimously reversed on the law and new trial granted. Memorandum: Defendant contends that the trial court erred in its charge concerning the defense of mental disease or defect. We agree. Since defendant raised the insanity defense, the People were required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant knew the nature and consequences of his acts and that he knew the acts were wrong (Penal Law former § 30.05 [1]; People v Moore, 132 AD2d 963, 964). This charge should be clear and unambiguous (People v Young, 65 NY2d 103, 109). The court, on numerous occasions during its charge, incorrectly stated the applicable law. Because the court failed to instruct the jury clearly on this crucial issue, reversal is mandated (People v Young, supra; People v Kelly, 302 NY 512, 515-517; People v Moore, supra; People v Buthy, 38 AD2d 10). (Appeal from judgment of Monroe County Court, Provenzano, J. — murder, second degree; grand larceny, second degree; robbery, first degree; conspiracy, second degree.) Present — Dillon, P. J., Callahan, Green, Balio and Lawton, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

143 A.D.2d 498, 532 N.Y.S.2d 951, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10638, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-pilbeam-nyappdiv-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack