People v. Wiltshire

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Wiltshire

225 A.D.2d 569, 639 N.Y.2d 726, 639 N.Y.S.2d 726, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1882

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

DecidedMarch 4, 1996

StatusPublished

This text of 225 A.D.2d 569 (People v. Wiltshire) 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. Wiltshire, 225 A.D.2d 569, 639 N.Y.2d 726, 639 N.Y.S.2d 726, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1882 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

The defendant failed to preserve for appellate review his objections to the court’s charge to the jury (see, CPL 470.05 [2]). In any event, contrary to the defendant’s contention, the court’s charge to the jury was adequate because the charge as a whole properly defined the concept of reasonable doubt (see, People v Canty, 60 NY2d 830; People v Taik Kwung, 186 AD2d 365; People v Jones, 156 AD2d 718). In addition, "although it was unnecessary for the trial court to elaborate upon the simple language of CPL 300.10 (2) with respect to the defendant’s failure to testify, the defendant was not deprived of a fair trial by the court’s charge” (People v Williams, 188 AD2d 573, 574). Mangano, P. J., Bracken, Copertino and Pizzuto, JJ., concur.

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

The defendant failed to preserve for appellate review his objections to the court’s charge to the jury (see, CPL 470.05 [2]). In any event, contrary to the defendant’s contention, the court’s charge to the jury was adequate because the charge as a whole properly defined the concept of reasonable doubt (see, People v Canty, 60 NY2d 830; People v Taik Kwung, 186 AD2d 365; People v Jones, 156 AD2d 718). In addition, "although it was unnecessary for the trial court to elaborate upon the simple language of CPL 300.10 (2) with respect to the defendant’s failure to testify, the defendant was not deprived of a fair trial by the court’s charge” (People v Williams, 188 AD2d 573, 574). Mangano, P. J., Bracken, Copertino and Pizzuto, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

225 A.D.2d 569, 639 N.Y.2d 726, 639 N.Y.S.2d 726, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1882, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-wiltshire-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack