People v. Rodriguez

89 A.D.3d 1115, 933 N.Y.2d 599
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in People v. Rodriguez. Read the opinion of the Court — 62 A.D.3d 728

Opinion

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, under the circumstances presented in this case, the trial court’s responses to the jury’s notes regarding the issue of intent, which were formulated after consulting with counsel, meaningfully addressed the jury’s inquiries, contained no misstatements of the law, and did not unfairly prejudice the defendant (see People v Steinberg, 79 NY2d 673, 684-685 [1992]; People v Greene, 87 AD3d 551 [2011]; People v Benard, 69 AD3d 952, 953 [2010]; People v Fair, 308 AD2d 597, 597-598 [2003]). Accordingly, the trial court did not err in its responses to the jury’s notes and inquiries. Mastro, J.P, Chambers, Sgroi and Miller, JJ., concur.

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

People v. Rodriguez, 89 A.D.3d 1115, 933 N.Y.2d 599 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

89 A.D.3d 1115 (People v. Rodriguez) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

People v. Steinberg
595 N.E.2d 845 (New York Court of Appeals, 1992)
People v. Benard
69 A.D.3d 952 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
People v. Greene
87 A.D.3d 551 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
People v. Fair
308 A.D.2d 597 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)