People v. Speight

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Speight

78 A.D.3d 1082, 910 N.Y.S.2d 911

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

DecidedNovember 23, 2010

StatusPublished

This text of 78 A.D.3d 1082 (People v. Speight) 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. Speight, 78 A.D.3d 1082, 910 N.Y.S.2d 911 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Ingram, J.), rendered June 10, 2008, convicting him of grand larceny in the fourth degree and petit larceny, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Upon our independent review of the evidence pursuant to CPL 470.15 (5), we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633 [2006]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions, concerning the handling of notes from the jury (see CPL 310.30) and an Allen charge (see Allen v United States, 164 US 492 [1896]), are not preserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Starling, 85 NY2d 509, 516 [1995]), and we decline to reach those issues in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction (see CPL 470.15 [3] [c]). Covello, J.P., Dickerson, Belen and Lott, JJ., concur.

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

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Ingram, J.), rendered June 10, 2008, convicting him of grand larceny in the fourth degree and petit larceny, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Upon our independent review of the evidence pursuant to CPL 470.15 (5), we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633 [2006]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions, concerning the handling of notes from the jury (see CPL 310.30) and an Allen charge (see Allen v United States, 164 US 492 [1896]), are not preserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Starling, 85 NY2d 509, 516 [1995]), and we decline to reach those issues in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction (see CPL 470.15 [3] [c]). Covello, J.P., Dickerson, Belen and Lott, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

78 A.D.3d 1082, 910 N.Y.S.2d 911, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-speight-nyappdiv-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack