People v. Read

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Read

236 A.D.2d 565, 654 N.Y.S.2d 649, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1316

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided February 18, 1997·Published

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Dutchess County (Dolan, J.), rendered February 3, 1995, convicting him of robbery in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the court’s denial of [566] his motion to reopen the case did not constitute an improvident exercise of discretion (see, People v Olsen, 34 NY2d 349, 353). Furthermore, the court’s charge, which followed the language set forth in the Criminal Jury Instructions (see, 2 CJI[NY] PL 160.05, at 897-901), adequately apprised the jury of the governing law (see, People v Dory, 59 NY2d 121; People v Dering, 140 AD2d 538; People v Freaney, 108 AD2d 228, 231-232).

We have considered the defendant’s remaining contentions, including those set forth in his supplemental pro se brief, and find them to be without merit. O’Brien, J. P., Joy, Friedmann and Florio, JJ., concur.

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

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Dutchess County (Dolan, J.), rendered February 3, 1995, convicting him of robbery in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the court’s denial of [566] his motion to reopen the case did not constitute an improvident exercise of discretion (see, People v Olsen, 34 NY2d 349, 353). Furthermore, the court’s charge, which followed the language set forth in the Criminal Jury Instructions (see, 2 CJI[NY] PL 160.05, at 897-901), adequately apprised the jury of the governing law (see, People v Dory, 59 NY2d 121; People v Dering, 140 AD2d 538; People v Freaney, 108 AD2d 228, 231-232).

We have considered the defendant’s remaining contentions, including those set forth in his supplemental pro se brief, and find them to be without merit. O’Brien, J. P., Joy, Friedmann and Florio, JJ., concur.

People v. Read, 236 A.D.2d 565, 654 N.Y.S.2d 649, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1316 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

236 A.D.2d 565 (People v. Read) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related