People v. Thomas

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Thomas

74 A.D.2d 614, 424 N.Y.S.2d 496, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10264

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

DecidedFebruary 11, 1980

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 74 A.D.2d 614 (People v. Thomas) 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. Thomas, 74 A.D.2d 614, 424 N.Y.S.2d 496, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10264 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered September 6, 1978, convicting him of robbery in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. Judgment affirmed. The court charged the jury that "a person is presumed to intend the natural consequence of his act”, a charge which was disaffirmed by the decision of the United States Supreme Court in Sandstrom v Montana (442 US 510). However, intent was not at issue. Defense counsel conceded, in his summation, that the issue in this case was that of identification. Therefore, any error in this portion of the charge was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt (see People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230). Although the trial court refused to deliver the defendant’s proposed charge as to the issue of identification, the charge given sufficiently alerted the jury to the possibility of mistaken identification and, hence, was proper. Hopkins, J. P., Damiani, Titone and Mangano, 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, rendered September 6, 1978, convicting him of robbery in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. Judgment affirmed. The court charged the jury that "a person is presumed to intend the natural consequence of his act”, a charge which was disaffirmed by the decision of the United States Supreme Court in Sandstrom v Montana (442 US 510). However, intent was not at issue. Defense counsel conceded, in his summation, that the issue in this case was that of identification. Therefore, any error in this portion of the charge was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt (see People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230). Although the trial court refused to deliver the defendant’s proposed charge as to the issue of identification, the charge given sufficiently alerted the jury to the possibility of mistaken identification and, hence, was proper. Hopkins, J. P., Damiani, Titone and Mangano, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

74 A.D.2d 614, 424 N.Y.S.2d 496, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10264, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-thomas-nyappdiv-1980.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack