People v. Staples

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Staples

103 A.D.2d 759, 477 N.Y.S.2d 231, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 19371

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

DecidedJuly 2, 1984

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 103 A.D.2d 759 (People v. Staples) 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. Staples, 103 A.D.2d 759, 477 N.Y.S.2d 231, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 19371 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

— Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Starkey, J.), rendered March 11, 1982, convicting him of attempted robbery in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. U Judgment affirmed. 11 At trial, the victim made a positive identification of the defendant as the person who attempted to rob him at gunpoint on December 27, 1980. The defendant did not testify but presented four alibi witnesses. H Although the trial court’s charge to the jury was improper in that it instructed the jury to most carefully scrutinize the evidence relating to the alibi without giving a like charge with respect to identification (see People v Fludd, 68 AD2d 409; People v Reed, 83 AD2d 645; People v Costales, 87 AD2d 635; People v Cippola, 96 AD2d 1102), the error was not preserved for appellate review and it was, in any event, harmless in view of the overwhelming proof of guilt (see People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230). We note that the court did, in fact, give an “elaborate charge as to identification testimony [which] must have impressed upon the jury the need of carefully scrutinizing that testimony too” (People v Contes, 91 AD2d 562, 563, affd 60 NY2d 620). We have reviewed defendant’s other contentions and find them to be without merit. Bracken, J. P., Weinstein, Brown and Niehoff, 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 Supreme Court, Kings County (Starkey, J.), rendered March 11, 1982, convicting him of attempted robbery in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. U Judgment affirmed. 11 At trial, the victim made a positive identification of the defendant as the person who attempted to rob him at gunpoint on December 27, 1980. The defendant did not testify but presented four alibi witnesses. H Although the trial court’s charge to the jury was improper in that it instructed the jury to most carefully scrutinize the evidence relating to the alibi without giving a like charge with respect to identification (see People v Fludd, 68 AD2d 409; People v Reed, 83 AD2d 645; People v Costales, 87 AD2d 635; People v Cippola, 96 AD2d 1102), the error was not preserved for appellate review and it was, in any event, harmless in view of the overwhelming proof of guilt (see People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230). We note that the court did, in fact, give an “elaborate charge as to identification testimony [which] must have impressed upon the jury the need of carefully scrutinizing that testimony too” (People v Contes, 91 AD2d 562, 563, affd 60 NY2d 620). We have reviewed defendant’s other contentions and find them to be without merit. Bracken, J. P., Weinstein, Brown and Niehoff, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

103 A.D.2d 759, 477 N.Y.S.2d 231, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 19371, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-staples-nyappdiv-1984.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack