People v. Reyes

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Reyes

71 A.D.2d 1034, 420 N.Y.S.2d 398, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13390

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

DecidedSeptember 28, 1979

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 71 A.D.2d 1034 (People v. Reyes) 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. Reyes, 71 A.D.2d 1034, 420 N.Y.S.2d 398, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13390 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1979).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered April 25, 1978, convicting him of burglary in the third degree and petit larceny, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. Judgment affirmed. Only one of defendant’s arguments merits discussion. He claims that the court’s charge to the jury that it may rely on "the presumption that a person intends the natural and probable consequences of his act” violated the rule set forth in Sandstrom v Montana (442 US 510), in that it relieved the People of the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt intent to commit a crime, an element of burglary in the third degree. Under the circumstances of this case we find the error to be harmless beyond a reasonable doubt (see People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230). The defendant’s guilt was overwhelmingly established. Lazer, J. P., Gulotta, Cohalan and Martuscello, JJ., concur.

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

—Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered April 25, 1978, convicting him of burglary in the third degree and petit larceny, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. Judgment affirmed. Only one of defendant’s arguments merits discussion. He claims that the court’s charge to the jury that it may rely on "the presumption that a person intends the natural and probable consequences of his act” violated the rule set forth in Sandstrom v Montana (442 US 510), in that it relieved the People of the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt intent to commit a crime, an element of burglary in the third degree. Under the circumstances of this case we find the error to be harmless beyond a reasonable doubt (see People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230). The defendant’s guilt was overwhelmingly established. Lazer, J. P., Gulotta, Cohalan and Martuscello, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

71 A.D.2d 1034, 420 N.Y.S.2d 398, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13390, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-reyes-nyappdiv-1979.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack