From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Bailey

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 29, 1995
222 A.D.2d 686 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)

Opinion

December 29, 1995

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Cozier, J.).


Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Although the court's instruction to the jury that no adverse inference may be drawn from the defendant's failure to testify on his own behalf included more than the statutory language (see, CPL 300.10), the instruction was neutral in tone, consistent in substance with the intent of CPL 300.10 (2), not so extensive as to prejudicially draw the jury's attention to the defendant's failure to testify, and did not imply that the failure to testify was a trial maneuver rather than a constitutional right (see, People v Pierre, 215 A.D.2d 599; People v Odome, 192 A.D.2d 725; People v Gardner, 182 A.D.2d 638, 639). Thus, the instruction did not constitute reversible error.

The defendant's remaining contentions, including those raised in his supplemental pro se brief, are either unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05) or without merit. Sullivan, J.P., Altman, Friedmann and Goldstein, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Bailey

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 29, 1995
222 A.D.2d 686 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
Case details for

People v. Bailey

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. FRUITQUAN BAILEY…

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

Date published: Dec 29, 1995

Citations

222 A.D.2d 686 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
636 N.Y.S.2d 86

Citing Cases

People v. Quinones

In the absence of an objection to the charge the error complained of is not preserved for appellate review (…

People v. Morales

In any event, the contention lacks merit. While the charge was lengthy and somewhat redundant, it was…