From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Dickson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jun 9, 1998
251 A.D.2d 65 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)

Opinion

June 9, 1998

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Harold Rothwax, J.).


The jurys rejection of the affirmative defense of extreme emotional disturbance was not against the weight of the evidence. We see no reason to disturb the jurys evaluation of conflicting expert testimony.

The court's examination of the defense expert was not so excessive as to warrant reversal ( see, People v. Moulton, 43 N.Y.2d 944).

Defendants contention that his right to a unanimous verdict was violated by the courts charge is not preserved for review ( People v. Garcia, 210 A.D.2d 143, lv denied 85 N.Y.2d 862), and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review it, we would find that the courts charge sufficiently conveyed the requirement of unanimity.

The court provided a meaningful response to an inquiry from the furors concerning its charge on the extreme emotional disturbance defense ( see, People v. Malloy, 55 N.Y.2d 296, 301, cert denied 459 U.S. 847).

We perceive no abuse of sentencing discretion.

We have considered defendants remaining contention and find it to be unpreserved and without merit.

Concur — Milonas, J. P., Wallach, Williams, Tom and Mazzarelli, JJ.


Summaries of

People v. Dickson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jun 9, 1998
251 A.D.2d 65 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
Case details for

People v. Dickson

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. CURTIS DICKSON…

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

Date published: Jun 9, 1998

Citations

251 A.D.2d 65 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
672 N.Y.S.2d 729

Citing Cases

People v. Veloz

The defendant's remaining contention is unpreserved for appellate review, and we decline to review it in the…