People v. Torres

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Torres

189 Misc. 2d 776, 736 N.Y.S.2d 566, 2001 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 907

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedOctober 25, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 189 Misc. 2d 776 (People v. Torres) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court 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. Torres, 189 Misc. 2d 776, 736 N.Y.S.2d 566, 2001 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 907 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

Judgment of conviction unanimously reversed on the law [777]*777and accusatory instrument dismissed.

In the case at bar, given the jury instruction, defendant’s conviction of menacing in the second degree was inconsistent with his acquittal of criminal possession of a dangerous weapon in the fourth degree (see, People v Tucker, 55 NY2d 1, rearg denied 55 NY2d 1039). In reaching this result, we are of the opinion that the fact that the court in its charge to the jury specifically referred to a knife in the criminal possession count while simply referring to a “dangerous instrument” in the menacing count, does not warrant a different result (cf., People v Powell, 171 AD2d 1026; People v Jamerson, 99 AD2d 816). The factual part of the accusatory instrument referred only to a knife and the court in its charge made no mention of any other weapon.

Aronin, J. P., Patterson and Golia, JJ., concur.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

Judgment of conviction unanimously reversed on the law [777]*777and accusatory instrument dismissed.

In the case at bar, given the jury instruction, defendant’s conviction of menacing in the second degree was inconsistent with his acquittal of criminal possession of a dangerous weapon in the fourth degree (see, People v Tucker, 55 NY2d 1, rearg denied 55 NY2d 1039). In reaching this result, we are of the opinion that the fact that the court in its charge to the jury specifically referred to a knife in the criminal possession count while simply referring to a “dangerous instrument” in the menacing count, does not warrant a different result (cf., People v Powell, 171 AD2d 1026; People v Jamerson, 99 AD2d 816). The factual part of the accusatory instrument referred only to a knife and the court in its charge made no mention of any other weapon.

Aronin, J. P., Patterson and Golia, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

189 Misc. 2d 776, 736 N.Y.S.2d 566, 2001 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 907, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-torres-nyappterm-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack