People v. Vanbrook

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Vanbrook

56 A.D.2d 805, 867 N.Y.S.2d 691

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

DecidedNovember 25, 2008

StatusPublished

This text of 56 A.D.2d 805 (People v. Vanbrook) 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. Vanbrook, 56 A.D.2d 805, 867 N.Y.S.2d 691 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

— Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Rooney, J.), rendered January 12, 2005, convicting him of robbery in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Viewing the jury charge as a whole, the court fairly instructed the jury on the correct principles of law to be applied to this case (see People v Leach, 38 AD3d 917 [2007]). The charge as a whole correctly and effectively conveyed the proper elements of the crime charged (see Penal Law § 160.10 [1]; People v Barnes, 153 AD2d 565 [1989]). The court properly declined to charge the jury in language that would have amounted to unnecessary marshaling of the evidence. The proper standards conveyed in the court’s charge were capable of being understood.by the jury without marshaling of facts (see People v Coscia, 279 AD2d 352 [2001]). Santucci, J.P., Covello, Leventhal and Belen, 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, Richmond County (Rooney, J.), rendered January 12, 2005, convicting him of robbery in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Viewing the jury charge as a whole, the court fairly instructed the jury on the correct principles of law to be applied to this case (see People v Leach, 38 AD3d 917 [2007]). The charge as a whole correctly and effectively conveyed the proper elements of the crime charged (see Penal Law § 160.10 [1]; People v Barnes, 153 AD2d 565 [1989]). The court properly declined to charge the jury in language that would have amounted to unnecessary marshaling of the evidence. The proper standards conveyed in the court’s charge were capable of being understood.by the jury without marshaling of facts (see People v Coscia, 279 AD2d 352 [2001]). Santucci, J.P., Covello, Leventhal and Belen, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

56 A.D.2d 805, 867 N.Y.S.2d 691, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-vanbrook-nyappdiv-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack