People v. Portnoy

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Portnoy

102 A.D.2d 858, 476 N.Y.S.2d 627, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 19057

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

DecidedJune 11, 1984

StatusPublished

This text of 102 A.D.2d 858 (People v. Portnoy) 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. Portnoy, 102 A.D.2d 858, 476 N.Y.S.2d 627, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 19057 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

— Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Jaspan, J.), rendered December 30, 1982, convicting him of criminal possession of a forged instrument in the second degree, criminal possession of stolen property in the first degree, and grand larceny in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. 11 Judgment affirmed, and the case is remitted to the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, for further proceedings pursuant to CPL 460.50 (subd 5). 11 We find that the court’s charge taken as a whole, including the reference to “conscious avoidance”, did not lower the standard of proof required for conviction. The court repeatedly stressed to the jury that the People must establish actual knowledge beyond a reasonable doubt in order to convict the defendant. 11 We have reviewed defendant’s other contentions and find them to be without merit. Mollen, P. J., Thompson, Rubin and Lawrence, JJ., concur.

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

— Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Jaspan, J.), rendered December 30, 1982, convicting him of criminal possession of a forged instrument in the second degree, criminal possession of stolen property in the first degree, and grand larceny in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. 11 Judgment affirmed, and the case is remitted to the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, for further proceedings pursuant to CPL 460.50 (subd 5). 11 We find that the court’s charge taken as a whole, including the reference to “conscious avoidance”, did not lower the standard of proof required for conviction. The court repeatedly stressed to the jury that the People must establish actual knowledge beyond a reasonable doubt in order to convict the defendant. 11 We have reviewed defendant’s other contentions and find them to be without merit. Mollen, P. J., Thompson, Rubin and Lawrence, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

102 A.D.2d 858, 476 N.Y.S.2d 627, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 19057, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-portnoy-nyappdiv-1984.