People v. Ramos

110 A.D.2d 860, 488 N.Y.S.2d 92, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 48773
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided April 22, 1985·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

Even if it was error for the court not to have charged the jury on criminal trespass in the third degree as a lesser included offense of burglary in the second degree or burglary in the third degree, as requested by counsel, the error was harmless under the circumstances, since the jury was instructed as to criminal trespass in the second degree and rejected that lesser included offense (see, People v Richette, 33 NY2d 42).

We have reviewed defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Lazer, J. P., O’Connor, Weinstein and Brown, JJ., concur.

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

People v. Ramos, 110 A.D.2d 860, 488 N.Y.S.2d 92, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 48773 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1985).

110 A.D.2d 860 (People v. Ramos) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Miller v. State
755 P.2d 855 (Wyoming Supreme Court, 1988)
People v. Cekja
131 A.D.2d 583 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1987)