People v. Reinoso

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Reinoso

257 A.D.2d 484, 685 N.Y.S.2d 4, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 427

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

DecidedJanuary 21, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 257 A.D.2d 484 (People v. Reinoso) 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. Reinoso, 257 A.D.2d 484, 685 N.Y.S.2d 4, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 427 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Lawrence Tonetti, J.), rendered May 1, 1995, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of two [485]*485counts of sodomy in the first degree, and sentencing him to concurrent terms of 4 to 12 years, unanimously affirmed.

A review of the reasonable doubt charge, as a whole, demonstrates that it contained no burden-shifting language (see, People v Thomas, 50 NY2d 467) and did not impose an affirmative obligation on the jury to articulate a basis for such doubt (see, People v Antommarchi, 80 NY2d 247, 251-252). We find no error in the court’s refusal to charge, as requested, that reasonable doubt could be found, not only from the evidence in the case, but also from the lack of evidence (People v Radcliffe, 232 NY 249, 254; see also, People v Nazario, 147 Misc 2d 934). The charge as a whole, including the court’s instructions on the jury’s evaluation of a one-witness case, adequately conveyed the requested concept. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Nardelli, Rubin and Mazzarelli, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Lawrence Tonetti, J.), rendered May 1, 1995, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of two [485]*485counts of sodomy in the first degree, and sentencing him to concurrent terms of 4 to 12 years, unanimously affirmed.

A review of the reasonable doubt charge, as a whole, demonstrates that it contained no burden-shifting language (see, People v Thomas, 50 NY2d 467) and did not impose an affirmative obligation on the jury to articulate a basis for such doubt (see, People v Antommarchi, 80 NY2d 247, 251-252). We find no error in the court’s refusal to charge, as requested, that reasonable doubt could be found, not only from the evidence in the case, but also from the lack of evidence (People v Radcliffe, 232 NY 249, 254; see also, People v Nazario, 147 Misc 2d 934). The charge as a whole, including the court’s instructions on the jury’s evaluation of a one-witness case, adequately conveyed the requested concept. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Nardelli, Rubin and Mazzarelli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

257 A.D.2d 484, 685 N.Y.S.2d 4, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 427, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-reinoso-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack