People v. Radwan

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Radwan

14 A.D.3d 446, 787 N.Y.S.2d 877, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 569

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

DecidedJanuary 27, 2005

StatusPublished

This text of 14 A.D.3d 446 (People v. Radwan) 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. Radwan, 14 A.D.3d 446, 787 N.Y.S.2d 877, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 569 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Ronald A. Zweibel, J.), rendered August 2, 2002, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of burglary in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 372 to 7 years, and judgment, same court (Marcy L. Kahn, J.), rendered October 17, 2002, convicting him, after a jury trial, of petit larceny, and sentencing him to a concurrent term of one year, unanimously affirmed.

At defendant’s first trial, he was convicted of petit larceny but the jury was unable to reach a verdict as to burglary. On retrial, defendant was convicted of burglary.

At the first trial, the court properly denied defendant’s application made under Batson v Kentucky (476 US 79 [1986]), since defendant failed to establish a prima facie case of intentional discrimination (see People v Brown, 97 NY2d 500, 507-508 [2002]). The record is clear that the court made only a step-one ruling.

At defendant’s second trial, the court’s charge, taken as a whole (see People v Samuels, 99 NY2d 20, 25-26 [2002]), stated the correct legal principles, including the People’s obligation to prove that defendant knew that his entry was unlawful (see [447]*447People v Basch, 36 NY2d 154, 159 [1975]). Furthermore, the court made it clear that the credibility of defendant’s assertion that he believed his entry to be lawful was a question for the jury. Concur—Buckley, P.J., Mazzarelli, Sullivan, Williams and Gonzalez, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Ronald A. Zweibel, J.), rendered August 2, 2002, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of burglary in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 372 to 7 years, and judgment, same court (Marcy L. Kahn, J.), rendered October 17, 2002, convicting him, after a jury trial, of petit larceny, and sentencing him to a concurrent term of one year, unanimously affirmed.

At defendant’s first trial, he was convicted of petit larceny but the jury was unable to reach a verdict as to burglary. On retrial, defendant was convicted of burglary.

At the first trial, the court properly denied defendant’s application made under Batson v Kentucky (476 US 79 [1986]), since defendant failed to establish a prima facie case of intentional discrimination (see People v Brown, 97 NY2d 500, 507-508 [2002]). The record is clear that the court made only a step-one ruling.

At defendant’s second trial, the court’s charge, taken as a whole (see People v Samuels, 99 NY2d 20, 25-26 [2002]), stated the correct legal principles, including the People’s obligation to prove that defendant knew that his entry was unlawful (see [447]*447People v Basch, 36 NY2d 154, 159 [1975]). Furthermore, the court made it clear that the credibility of defendant’s assertion that he believed his entry to be lawful was a question for the jury. Concur—Buckley, P.J., Mazzarelli, Sullivan, Williams and Gonzalez, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

14 A.D.3d 446, 787 N.Y.S.2d 877, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 569, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-radwan-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack