People v. Reid

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Reid

291 A.D.2d 416, 737 N.Y.S.2d 301, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1261

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

DecidedFebruary 4, 2002

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 291 A.D.2d 416 (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, 291 A.D.2d 416, 737 N.Y.S.2d 301, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1261 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Bárbaro, J.), rendered April 10, 2000, convicting him of robbery in the third degree and attempted assault in the third degree, upon a. jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see, People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt of attempted assault in the third degree beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt of that crime was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15 [5]).

The defendant has not preserved for appellate review his contention regarding the trial court’s instruction to the jury on the presumption of innocence (see, CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Henderson, 259 AD2d 495). In any event, the failure to instruct the jury on the presumption of innocence was harmless, since the proof of the defendant’s guilt was overwhelming, and the court gave a strong and unequivocal instruction regarding the People’s burden of proof (see, People v Creech, 60 NY2d 895; People v Ponder, 266 AD2d 826; People v Adams, 247 AD2d 819).

The defendant’s remaining contention is without merit. Altman, J.P., Feuerstein, O’Brien and H. Miller, 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 Supreme Court, Kings County (Bárbaro, J.), rendered April 10, 2000, convicting him of robbery in the third degree and attempted assault in the third degree, upon a. jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see, People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt of attempted assault in the third degree beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt of that crime was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15 [5]).

The defendant has not preserved for appellate review his contention regarding the trial court’s instruction to the jury on the presumption of innocence (see, CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Henderson, 259 AD2d 495). In any event, the failure to instruct the jury on the presumption of innocence was harmless, since the proof of the defendant’s guilt was overwhelming, and the court gave a strong and unequivocal instruction regarding the People’s burden of proof (see, People v Creech, 60 NY2d 895; People v Ponder, 266 AD2d 826; People v Adams, 247 AD2d 819).

The defendant’s remaining contention is without merit. Altman, J.P., Feuerstein, O’Brien and H. Miller, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

291 A.D.2d 416, 737 N.Y.S.2d 301, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1261, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-reid-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack