People v. Roundtree

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Roundtree

38 A.D.3d 385, 833 N.Y.S.2d 19

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

DecidedMarch 22, 2007

StatusPublished

This text of 38 A.D.3d 385 (People v. Roundtree) 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. Roundtree, 38 A.D.3d 385, 833 N.Y.S.2d 19 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Edwin Torres, J.), rendered November 15, 2005, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of robbery in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 2V2 to 5 years, unanimously affirmed.

While the court should have avoided singling out the intoxication defense as a matter upon which the jury should “proceed with caution,” the charge, viewed as a whole, conveyed the proper standards and did not deprive defendant of a fair trial (see People v Fields, 87 NY2d 821 [1995]). The court carefully instructed the jury on the People’s burden of proof, and it never suggested that defendant had any such burden (compare People v Velazquez, 77 AD2d 845 [1980], lv denied 51 NY2d 884 [1980]), or that the court had any opinion on the intoxication issue. Defendant’s argument concerning the court’s supplemental charge is unpreserved and without merit. Concur—Tom, J.E, Andrias, Sullivan, Williams and Gonzalez, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Edwin Torres, J.), rendered November 15, 2005, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of robbery in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 2V2 to 5 years, unanimously affirmed.

While the court should have avoided singling out the intoxication defense as a matter upon which the jury should “proceed with caution,” the charge, viewed as a whole, conveyed the proper standards and did not deprive defendant of a fair trial (see People v Fields, 87 NY2d 821 [1995]). The court carefully instructed the jury on the People’s burden of proof, and it never suggested that defendant had any such burden (compare People v Velazquez, 77 AD2d 845 [1980], lv denied 51 NY2d 884 [1980]), or that the court had any opinion on the intoxication issue. Defendant’s argument concerning the court’s supplemental charge is unpreserved and without merit. Concur—Tom, J.E, Andrias, Sullivan, Williams and Gonzalez, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

38 A.D.3d 385, 833 N.Y.S.2d 19, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-roundtree-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack