People v. Zada

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Zada

98 A.D.2d 733, 469 N.Y.S.2d 147, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 21043

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

DecidedDecember 5, 1983

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 98 A.D.2d 733 (People v. Zada) 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. Zada, 98 A.D.2d 733, 469 N.Y.S.2d 147, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 21043 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1983).

Pincite

Opinion

— Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Rosenblatt, J.), rendered March 10,1980, convicting him of murder in the second degree (two counts), attempted sodomy in the first degree and aggravated sexual abuse, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. Judgment affirmed. Defendant’s contention that trial counsel’s failure to pursue an insanity defense on his behalf resulted in a denial of his constitutional right to the effective assistance of counsel is without basis. The record herein is barren of any indication that defendant suffers or has suffered from a mental disease or defect. The decision of defendant’s experienced trial counsel to pursue a defense of police fabrication represented a conscious choice of trial strategy. It in no respect was indicative of incompetence (see People v Lane, 60 NY2d 748, 750, citing People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137). We have considered the remaining contentions raised by defendant’s appellate counsel and by defendant pro se, and find them to be without merit. Mollen, P. J., Titone, Bracken and Brown, 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, Rockland County (Rosenblatt, J.), rendered March 10,1980, convicting him of murder in the second degree (two counts), attempted sodomy in the first degree and aggravated sexual abuse, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. Judgment affirmed. Defendant’s contention that trial counsel’s failure to pursue an insanity defense on his behalf resulted in a denial of his constitutional right to the effective assistance of counsel is without basis. The record herein is barren of any indication that defendant suffers or has suffered from a mental disease or defect. The decision of defendant’s experienced trial counsel to pursue a defense of police fabrication represented a conscious choice of trial strategy. It in no respect was indicative of incompetence (see People v Lane, 60 NY2d 748, 750, citing People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137). We have considered the remaining contentions raised by defendant’s appellate counsel and by defendant pro se, and find them to be without merit. Mollen, P. J., Titone, Bracken and Brown, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

98 A.D.2d 733, 469 N.Y.S.2d 147, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 21043, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-zada-nyappdiv-1983.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack