People v. Tillery

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Tillery

220 A.D.2d 251, 632 N.Y.S.2d 99, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10017

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

DecidedOctober 10, 1995

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 220 A.D.2d 251 (People v. Tillery) 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. Tillery, 220 A.D.2d 251, 632 N.Y.S.2d 99, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10017 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Nicholas Figueroa, J.), rendered July 22, 1993, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of grand larceny in the fourth degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 2 to 4 years, unanimously affirmed.

Although the court’s charge did contain the rhetorical "who speaks the truth”, we reject defendant’s contention that the court erroneously "made virtually certain that the jurors would not apply the reasonable doubt standard until after they had determined what was the truth”. The charge as a whole conveyed to the jury that it must determine whether the credible proof established defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. We have considered defendant’s remaining contention and find it to be without merit. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Kupferman, Nardelli and Williams, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Nicholas Figueroa, J.), rendered July 22, 1993, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of grand larceny in the fourth degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 2 to 4 years, unanimously affirmed.

Although the court’s charge did contain the rhetorical "who speaks the truth”, we reject defendant’s contention that the court erroneously "made virtually certain that the jurors would not apply the reasonable doubt standard until after they had determined what was the truth”. The charge as a whole conveyed to the jury that it must determine whether the credible proof established defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. We have considered defendant’s remaining contention and find it to be without merit. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Kupferman, Nardelli and Williams, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

220 A.D.2d 251, 632 N.Y.S.2d 99, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10017, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-tillery-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack