From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Howard

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Apr 18, 1995
214 A.D.2d 418 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)

Opinion

April 18, 1995

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Budd Goodman, J.).


Defendant's claim regarding the court's failure to charge the jury on an element of rape in the first degree is unpreserved for review as a matter of law (People v Smolen, 166 N.Y.2d 248, 249, lv denied 77 N.Y.2d 844), and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. If we were to review it, we would find that where defendant was charged with attempted rape in the first degree, the court's instructions as a whole adequately conveyed to the jury that it must find that defendant attempted to engage in sexual intercourse with the victim, notwithstanding its failure to charge that sexual intercourse "occurs upon penetration, however slight." The court also properly instructed the jury that forcible compulsion was an element of attempted sodomy in the first degree (People v Williams, 81 N.Y.2d 303, 316), even though it did not repeat the definition of the term which it had provided to the jury during its earlier charge with respect to attempted rape in the first degree.

We have considered defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit.

Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Rosenberger, Wallach, Asch and Williams, JJ.


Summaries of

People v. Howard

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Apr 18, 1995
214 A.D.2d 418 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
Case details for

People v. Howard

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. GERALD HOWARD…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: Apr 18, 1995

Citations

214 A.D.2d 418 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
625 N.Y.S.2d 193

Citing Cases

People v. Acosta

We decline to exercise our power to review those contentions as a matter of discretion in the interest of…