From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Dukes

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 10, 1997
236 A.D.2d 484 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)

Opinion

February 10, 1997.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Grajales, J.), rendered October 14, 1994, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Before: Miller, J.P., Sullivan, Pizzuto and Goldstein, JJ.


Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

While there is a potential burden-shifting effect to an admonition, delivered in the presence of the jury, that a defense opening statement be confined to matters that the defense intends to "prove", the court's admonition in this case did not constitute reversible error ( see, People v Fabian, 213 AD2d 298, 298-299; People v Rodriguez, 211 AD2d 443; People v Robinson, 202 AD2d 225, 225-226). Under the circumstances of this case, "there is no realistic view that the court's remarks could be interpreted so as to skew the burden of proof ( People v Concepcion, 228 AD2d 204, 206).


Summaries of

People v. Dukes

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 10, 1997
236 A.D.2d 484 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)
Case details for

People v. Dukes

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. MICHAEL DUKES…

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

Date published: Feb 10, 1997

Citations

236 A.D.2d 484 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)
654 N.Y.S.2d 605

Citing Cases

People v. White

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed. Contrary to the defendant's contention, the trial court's comments…

People v. Robles

ening statement to what she intended to prove did not shift the burden of proof. The court thoroughly…