People v. Rawlings

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Rawlings

169 A.D.2d 399, 563 N.Y.S.2d 651, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9

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

DecidedJanuary 3, 1991

StatusPublished

This text of 169 A.D.2d 399 (People v. Rawlings) 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. Rawlings, 169 A.D.2d 399, 563 N.Y.S.2d 651, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Jerome Hornblass, J.), rendered October 30, 1987, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of burglary in the third degree and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to an indeterminate prison term of from 3Vi to 7 years, unanimously affirmed.

In this prosecution for the burglary of a restaurant, the only issue raised concerns the court’s charge to the jury with respect to the requirement that guilt be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Aside from possible failure to properly preserve the precise point made on appeal, we have held that a charge defining a reasonable doubt as a doubt for which a jury can "give a reason” is not erroneous (People v Santiago, 164 AD2d 824).

In any event, since there was overwhelming proof of the defendant’s guilt, the error, if any, would be considered harmless. (People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230, 237.) Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Milonas, Rosenberger, Ellerin and Rubin, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Jerome Hornblass, J.), rendered October 30, 1987, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of burglary in the third degree and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to an indeterminate prison term of from 3Vi to 7 years, unanimously affirmed.

In this prosecution for the burglary of a restaurant, the only issue raised concerns the court’s charge to the jury with respect to the requirement that guilt be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Aside from possible failure to properly preserve the precise point made on appeal, we have held that a charge defining a reasonable doubt as a doubt for which a jury can "give a reason” is not erroneous (People v Santiago, 164 AD2d 824).

In any event, since there was overwhelming proof of the defendant’s guilt, the error, if any, would be considered harmless. (People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230, 237.) Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Milonas, Rosenberger, Ellerin and Rubin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

169 A.D.2d 399, 563 N.Y.S.2d 651, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-rawlings-nyappdiv-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack