People v. Schaeffer

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Schaeffer

115 A.D.2d 500, 496 N.Y.S.2d 373, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 54905

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

DecidedDecember 2, 1985

StatusPublished

This text of 115 A.D.2d 500 (People v. Schaeffer) 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. Schaeffer, 115 A.D.2d 500, 496 N.Y.S.2d 373, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 54905 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (Copertino, J.), rendered June 12, 1984, convicting him of rape in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of those branches of defendant’s omnibus motion as sought suppression of statements and identification testimony.

Judgment affirmed.

We find no merit to defendant’s contentions regarding the admissibility of statements and identification testimony, the People’s summation, or the sentence imposed. We would only note that the court’s charge on reasonable doubt was not ideal and that use of instructions such as those suggested in 1 CJI 6.20 would be preferable. Taken in its entirety, however, the charge conveyed to the jury the correct burden of proof (see, People v Cruz, 97 AD2d 518). Moreover, the evidence of defendant’s guilt, including the element of forcible compulsion, was overwhelming. Accordingly, the error, if any, was harmless. O’Connor, J. P., Weinstein, Niehoff and Eiber, 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 County Court, Suffolk County (Copertino, J.), rendered June 12, 1984, convicting him of rape in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of those branches of defendant’s omnibus motion as sought suppression of statements and identification testimony.

Judgment affirmed.

We find no merit to defendant’s contentions regarding the admissibility of statements and identification testimony, the People’s summation, or the sentence imposed. We would only note that the court’s charge on reasonable doubt was not ideal and that use of instructions such as those suggested in 1 CJI 6.20 would be preferable. Taken in its entirety, however, the charge conveyed to the jury the correct burden of proof (see, People v Cruz, 97 AD2d 518). Moreover, the evidence of defendant’s guilt, including the element of forcible compulsion, was overwhelming. Accordingly, the error, if any, was harmless. O’Connor, J. P., Weinstein, Niehoff and Eiber, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

115 A.D.2d 500, 496 N.Y.S.2d 373, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 54905, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-schaeffer-nyappdiv-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack