People v. Robinson

New York Court of Appeals

People v. Robinson

671 N.E.2d 1266, 88 N.Y.2d 1001, 648 N.Y.S.2d 869, 1996 N.Y. LEXIS 2694

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedSeptember 10, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by328 cases

This text of 671 N.E.2d 1266 (People v. Robinson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Robinson, 671 N.E.2d 1266, 88 N.Y.2d 1001, 648 N.Y.S.2d 869, 1996 N.Y. LEXIS 2694 (N.Y. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

After a jury trial, defendant was convicted, as an accomplice, of rape in the first degree and sexual abuse in the first degree. On her appeal to the Appellate Division, defendant contended, among other things, that the trial court’s instruction to the jury on reasonable doubt impermissibly shifted the burden of proof. The majority of the Appellate Division held that this contention was unpreserved (218 AD2d 673, 674). We agree, *1002 because to frame and preserve a question of law reviewable by this Court, an objection or exception must be made with sufficient specificity at the trial, when the nisi prius court has an opportunity to consider and deal with the asserted error (CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Robinson, 36 NY2d 224). That was not done here.

We have examined defendant’s remaining contentions and conclude that they are without merit.

Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Simons, Titone, Bellacosa, Smith, Levine and Ciparick concur.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.4), order affirmed in a memorandum.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

After a jury trial, defendant was convicted, as an accomplice, of rape in the first degree and sexual abuse in the first degree. On her appeal to the Appellate Division, defendant contended, among other things, that the trial court’s instruction to the jury on reasonable doubt impermissibly shifted the burden of proof. The majority of the Appellate Division held that this contention was unpreserved (218 AD2d 673, 674). We agree, *1002 because to frame and preserve a question of law reviewable by this Court, an objection or exception must be made with sufficient specificity at the trial, when the nisi prius court has an opportunity to consider and deal with the asserted error (CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Robinson, 36 NY2d 224). That was not done here.

We have examined defendant’s remaining contentions and conclude that they are without merit.

Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Simons, Titone, Bellacosa, Smith, Levine and Ciparick concur.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.4), order affirmed in a memorandum.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

671 N.E.2d 1266, 88 N.Y.2d 1001, 648 N.Y.S.2d 869, 1996 N.Y. LEXIS 2694, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-robinson-ny-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack