People v. Talbert

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Talbert

303 A.D.2d 696, 756 N.Y.S.2d 782

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

DecidedMarch 24, 2003

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 303 A.D.2d 696 (People v. Talbert) 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. Talbert, 303 A.D.2d 696, 756 N.Y.S.2d 782 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Bárbaro, J.), rendered November 2, 2000, convicting him of murder in the second degree, robbery in the first degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant claims that the court deprived him of the right to be present during a replay of his videotaped statement which had been requested by the jury during its deliberation. However, the defendant failed to satisfy his burden of coming forward with substantial evidence to rebut the presumption of regularity which attaches to all criminal proceedings (see People v Andrew, 299 AD2d 415 [2002]; People v Williams, 220 AD2d 788 [1995]; People v Davis, 151 AD2d 596 [1989]). Ritter, J.P., Santucci, Feuerstein and Schmidt, 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 (Bárbaro, J.), rendered November 2, 2000, convicting him of murder in the second degree, robbery in the first degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant claims that the court deprived him of the right to be present during a replay of his videotaped statement which had been requested by the jury during its deliberation. However, the defendant failed to satisfy his burden of coming forward with substantial evidence to rebut the presumption of regularity which attaches to all criminal proceedings (see People v Andrew, 299 AD2d 415 [2002]; People v Williams, 220 AD2d 788 [1995]; People v Davis, 151 AD2d 596 [1989]). Ritter, J.P., Santucci, Feuerstein and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

303 A.D.2d 696, 756 N.Y.S.2d 782, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-talbert-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack