Opinion
11-13-2015
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Carl F. NELSON, Defendant–Appellant.
Timothy P. Donaher, Public Defender, Rochester (James Eckert of Counsel), for Defendant–Appellant. Sandra Doorley, District Attorney, Rochester (Robert J. Shoemaker of Counsel), for Respondent.
Timothy P. Donaher, Public Defender, Rochester (James Eckert of Counsel), for Defendant–Appellant.
Sandra Doorley, District Attorney, Rochester (Robert J. Shoemaker of Counsel), for Respondent.
Opinion
MEMORANDUM:
On appeal from a judgment convicting him upon a jury verdict of murder in the second degree (Penal Law § 125.25[1] ), defendant contends that Supreme Court erred in refusing to charge the jury with respect to the voluntariness of defendant's statements to the police. We reject that contention. “A court is required to provide a charge regarding the voluntariness of defendant's statements only if defendant raises that issue, and ‘evidence sufficient to raise a factual dispute [is] adduced either by direct or cross-examination’ ” (People v. Nathan, 108 A.D.3d 1077, 1078, 969 N.Y.S.2d 332, lv. denied 23 N.Y.3d 966, 988 N.Y.S.2d 573, 11 N.E.3d 723, quoting People v. Cefaro, 23 N.Y.2d 283, 288–289, 296 N.Y.S.2d 345, 244 N.E.2d 42 ). Here, defendant did not submit any evidence presenting a genuine issue of fact concerning the voluntariness of his statements, and we therefore conclude that the court was not required to instruct the jury on that issue (see People v. Canfield, 111 A.D.3d 1396, 1396, 974 N.Y.S.2d 859, lv. denied 22 N.Y.3d 1087, 981 N.Y.S.2d 673, 4 N.E.3d 975 ; Nathan, 108 A.D.3d at 1078, 969 N.Y.S.2d 332 ).
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.
SCUDDER, P.J., SMITH, CARNI, LINDLEY, and VALENTINO, JJ., concur.