People v. Somers

New York Court of Appeals

People v. Somers

78 N.Y.2d 1058

New York Court of Appeals·Decided October 22, 1991·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Order affirmed. The issues sought to be raised by defendant are not preserved for this Court’s review and, therefore, the Court cannot consider the merits.

Concur: Chief Judge Wachtler and Judges Simons, Kaye, Alexander, Titone and Bellacos a. Judge Hancock, Jr., dissents and votes to reverse, concluding that defendant preserved the constitutional issue whether the application of Penal Law §§ 40.15 and 25.00 unconstitutionally shifted the burden of proof to defendant, and that the trial court’s charge to the jury failed to safeguard against the insanity affirmative defense statute *1060 impermissibly shifting to defendant the burden of disproving intent (see, People v Kohl, 72 NY2d 191, 198-199).

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Order affirmed. The issues sought to be raised by defendant are not preserved for this Court’s review and, therefore, the Court cannot consider the merits.

Concur: Chief Judge Wachtler and Judges Simons, Kaye, Alexander, Titone and Bellacos a. Judge Hancock, Jr., dissents and votes to reverse, concluding that defendant preserved the constitutional issue whether the application of Penal Law §§ 40.15 and 25.00 unconstitutionally shifted the burden of proof to defendant, and that the trial court’s charge to the jury failed to safeguard against the insanity affirmative defense statute *1060 impermissibly shifting to defendant the burden of disproving intent (see, People v Kohl, 72 NY2d 191, 198-199).

People v. Somers, 78 N.Y.2d 1058 (N.Y. 1991).

Pincite

78 N.Y.2d 1058 (People v. Somers) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related