People v. Turcsan

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Turcsan

201 A.D.2d 595, 609 N.Y.S.2d 808

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

DecidedFebruary 14, 1994

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 201 A.D.2d 595 (People v. Turcsan) 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. Turcsan, 201 A.D.2d 595, 609 N.Y.S.2d 808 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Westchester County (Colabella, J.), rendered February 25, 1987, convicting him of murder in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant confessed that he hired a codefendant to kill his wife, as a result of which she died from multiple stab wounds. On appeal, the defendant contends that the trial court failed to adequately define the term "preponderance” in charging the jury that the defendant must establish the affirmative defense of extreme emotional disturbance by a preponderance of the evidence. This issue is unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05; People v Thomas, 50 NY2d 467). In any event, we find that the charge, read as a whole, adequately apprised the jury of the applicable legal principles (see, e.g., People v Dory, 59 NY2d 121, 129; People v Calderon, 182 AD2d 770; People v Dengler, 109 AD2d 847).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05 [2]) and, in any event, are either without merit or harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of the defendant’s guilt (see, People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230). Thompson, J. P., O’Brien, Joy and Altman, 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 County Court, Westchester County (Colabella, J.), rendered February 25, 1987, convicting him of murder in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant confessed that he hired a codefendant to kill his wife, as a result of which she died from multiple stab wounds. On appeal, the defendant contends that the trial court failed to adequately define the term "preponderance” in charging the jury that the defendant must establish the affirmative defense of extreme emotional disturbance by a preponderance of the evidence. This issue is unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05; People v Thomas, 50 NY2d 467). In any event, we find that the charge, read as a whole, adequately apprised the jury of the applicable legal principles (see, e.g., People v Dory, 59 NY2d 121, 129; People v Calderon, 182 AD2d 770; People v Dengler, 109 AD2d 847).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05 [2]) and, in any event, are either without merit or harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of the defendant’s guilt (see, People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230). Thompson, J. P., O’Brien, Joy and Altman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

201 A.D.2d 595, 609 N.Y.S.2d 808, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-turcsan-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack