People v. Watson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Watson

78 A.D.2d 685, 432 N.Y.S.2d 247, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13200

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

DecidedOctober 20, 1980

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 78 A.D.2d 685 (People v. Watson) 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. Watson, 78 A.D.2d 685, 432 N.Y.S.2d 247, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13200 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered March 17, 1978, convicting him of burglary in the second degree, assault in the first degree, and petit larceny, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. Judgment affirmed. The trial court’s instructions with respect to the law relating to identification evidence and the factors to be weighed by the jury in assessing such evidence were adequate. Although the trial court erred in failing to relate these legal principles to the evidence adduced at trial (see People v Carney, 73 AD2d 972), we are of the view that, under the circumstances of this case, such error was cured when, at the jury’s request during its deliberations, the jury was read all of the testimony of the two witnesses who identified defendant (see People v Vargas, 74 AD2d 859). We have examined the remaining contentions raised by the defendant and find them to be without merit. Gibbons, J. P., Gulotta, Margett and Martuscello, 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 March 17, 1978, convicting him of burglary in the second degree, assault in the first degree, and petit larceny, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. Judgment affirmed. The trial court’s instructions with respect to the law relating to identification evidence and the factors to be weighed by the jury in assessing such evidence were adequate. Although the trial court erred in failing to relate these legal principles to the evidence adduced at trial (see People v Carney, 73 AD2d 972), we are of the view that, under the circumstances of this case, such error was cured when, at the jury’s request during its deliberations, the jury was read all of the testimony of the two witnesses who identified defendant (see People v Vargas, 74 AD2d 859). We have examined the remaining contentions raised by the defendant and find them to be without merit. Gibbons, J. P., Gulotta, Margett and Martuscello, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

78 A.D.2d 685, 432 N.Y.S.2d 247, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13200, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-watson-nyappdiv-1980.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack