People v. Reid

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Reid

165 A.D.2d 776, 564 N.Y.S.2d 43, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11343

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

DecidedSeptember 25, 1990

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 165 A.D.2d 776 (People v. Reid) 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. Reid, 165 A.D.2d 776, 564 N.Y.S.2d 43, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11343 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan Carey, J.), rendered December 20, 1988, convicting defendant, after jury trial, of burglary in the second degree and sentencing him to an indeterminate term of 2 to 6 years’ imprisonment, unanimously affirmed.

The trial court’s failure to charge the jury on the significance of evidence of flight, as an indication of guilt, has not been preserved for appellate review. In any event, since this evidence was referred to only once during the prosecutor’s summation, an instruction would have unduly emphasized the issue, and the failure to seek such an instruction must be viewed as a tactical decision by defense counsel. With regard to the challenge to an assertedly overexpansive instruction on defendant’s exercise of his privilege against self-incrimination, [777]*777that issue has also not been preserved for appellate review (see, People v Autry, 75 NY2d 836). Further, we find no overstepping of the bounds of propriety in the prosecutor’s summation.

Concur — Ross, J. P., Rosenberger, Asch, Kassal 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 (Joan Carey, J.), rendered December 20, 1988, convicting defendant, after jury trial, of burglary in the second degree and sentencing him to an indeterminate term of 2 to 6 years’ imprisonment, unanimously affirmed.

The trial court’s failure to charge the jury on the significance of evidence of flight, as an indication of guilt, has not been preserved for appellate review. In any event, since this evidence was referred to only once during the prosecutor’s summation, an instruction would have unduly emphasized the issue, and the failure to seek such an instruction must be viewed as a tactical decision by defense counsel. With regard to the challenge to an assertedly overexpansive instruction on defendant’s exercise of his privilege against self-incrimination, [777]*777that issue has also not been preserved for appellate review (see, People v Autry, 75 NY2d 836). Further, we find no overstepping of the bounds of propriety in the prosecutor’s summation.

Concur — Ross, J. P., Rosenberger, Asch, Kassal and Rubin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

165 A.D.2d 776, 564 N.Y.S.2d 43, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11343, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-reid-nyappdiv-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack