People v. Simmons

New York Court of Appeals

People v. Simmons

931 N.E.2d 1053, 15 N.Y.3d 728, 905 N.Y.S.2d 797

New York Court of Appeals·Decided June 24, 2010·No. 135·Published·Cited by 11 cases

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

Although certain phrases in the trial court’s supplemental instruction were inartfully worded, we are unpersuaded that the trial court’s response to a jury note, which inquired about the element of intent, usurped the role of the jurors. Viewing the problematic language in the broader context of the supplemental instruction and the jury charge as a whole, the court conveyed the proper legal standards and repeatedly advised the jury that it was the exclusive arbiter of the facts.

Chief Judge Lippman and Judges Ciparick, Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Jones concur.

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.

Although certain phrases in the trial court’s supplemental instruction were inartfully worded, we are unpersuaded that the trial court’s response to a jury note, which inquired about the element of intent, usurped the role of the jurors. Viewing the problematic language in the broader context of the supplemental instruction and the jury charge as a whole, the court conveyed the proper legal standards and repeatedly advised the jury that it was the exclusive arbiter of the facts.

Chief Judge Lippman and Judges Ciparick, Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Jones concur.

Order affirmed in a memorandum.

People v. Simmons, 931 N.E.2d 1053, 15 N.Y.3d 728, 905 N.Y.S.2d 797 (N.Y. 2010).

Pincite

931 N.E.2d 1053 (People v. Simmons) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related