People v. Yi Ming Kam

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Yi Ming Kam

238 A.D.2d 617, 657 N.Y.S.2d 954, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4365

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided April 28, 1997·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Finnegan, J.), rendered May 2, 1995, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, robbery in the second degree, burglary in the second degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentencing.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s challenge to the court’s comments during jury selection is unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Vargas, 88 NY2d 363, 381; People v Udzinski, 146 AD2d 245, 250).

The entirety of the court’s reasonable doubt charge ad[618]*618equately conveyed the People’s burden to prove the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt (see, People v Canty, 60 NY2d 830, 831; People v Thompson, 97 AD2d 554, 555; People v Ortiz, 92 AD2d 595; People v Patterson, 76 AD2d 891). Rosenblatt, J. P., Miller, Thompson and Santucci, 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, Queens County (Finnegan, J.), rendered May 2, 1995, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, robbery in the second degree, burglary in the second degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentencing.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s challenge to the court’s comments during jury selection is unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Vargas, 88 NY2d 363, 381; People v Udzinski, 146 AD2d 245, 250).

The entirety of the court’s reasonable doubt charge ad[618]*618equately conveyed the People’s burden to prove the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt (see, People v Canty, 60 NY2d 830, 831; People v Thompson, 97 AD2d 554, 555; People v Ortiz, 92 AD2d 595; People v Patterson, 76 AD2d 891). Rosenblatt, J. P., Miller, Thompson and Santucci, JJ., concur.

People v. Yi Ming Kam, 238 A.D.2d 617, 657 N.Y.S.2d 954, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4365 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

238 A.D.2d 617 (People v. Yi Ming Kam) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related