People v. Shipp

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Shipp

166 A.D.2d 900, 561 N.Y.S.2d 664, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12161

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

DecidedOctober 5, 1990

StatusPublished

This text of 166 A.D.2d 900 (People v. Shipp) 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. Shipp, 166 A.D.2d 900, 561 N.Y.S.2d 664, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12161 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment of conviction, following a jury trial, for two counts of robbery in the second degree and one count of grand larceny in the third degree. He contends that he was deprived of a fair trial by the court’s failure to provide the jury with the "required cautionary instruction” (People v Muggelberg, 132 AD2d 988, lv denied 70 NY2d 958) that dog-tracking evidence is of " 'slight probative value’ ” and is to be viewed with " 'utmost caution’ ” (People v Abdullah, 134 AD2d 503, 504, lv denied 71 NY2d 965; People v Centolella, 61 Misc 2d 723, 725). Although defendant was entitled to the charge, he did not object to the admission of the dog-tracking evidence on lack of foundation grounds, did not object to the charge as given, nor did he request the court to provide further cautionary instructions at a time when the court could have corrected its omission. Consequently, defendant has failed to preserve this issue for review as a matter of law (see, People v James, 75 NY2d 874, 875). (Appeal from judgment of Monroe County Court, Maloy, J.—robbery, second degree.) Present—Dillon, P. J., Callahan, Boomer, Green and Balio, JJ.

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

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment of conviction, following a jury trial, for two counts of robbery in the second degree and one count of grand larceny in the third degree. He contends that he was deprived of a fair trial by the court’s failure to provide the jury with the "required cautionary instruction” (People v Muggelberg, 132 AD2d 988, lv denied 70 NY2d 958) that dog-tracking evidence is of " 'slight probative value’ ” and is to be viewed with " 'utmost caution’ ” (People v Abdullah, 134 AD2d 503, 504, lv denied 71 NY2d 965; People v Centolella, 61 Misc 2d 723, 725). Although defendant was entitled to the charge, he did not object to the admission of the dog-tracking evidence on lack of foundation grounds, did not object to the charge as given, nor did he request the court to provide further cautionary instructions at a time when the court could have corrected its omission. Consequently, defendant has failed to preserve this issue for review as a matter of law (see, People v James, 75 NY2d 874, 875). (Appeal from judgment of Monroe County Court, Maloy, J.—robbery, second degree.) Present—Dillon, P. J., Callahan, Boomer, Green and Balio, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

166 A.D.2d 900, 561 N.Y.S.2d 664, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12161, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-shipp-nyappdiv-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack