From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Goodson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jan 30, 1992
179 A.D.2d 584 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)

Opinion

January 30, 1992

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County, Clifford A. Scott, J., Howard E. Bell, J.


After being placed under arrest for stealing money from the complainant's pants pocket, defendant was given his Miranda rights by the police on the scene. Ten to fifteen minutes later, on the way to the precinct, defendant made an inculpatory statement in response to a question regarding his unapprehended accomplices. A motion by defendant to suppress this statement having been denied, defendant requested the trial court to charge the jury on the issue of voluntariness pursuant to CPL 710.70, which request was denied. No error was thereby committed. A trial court is required to charge on voluntariness only if an issue has been raised at the trial by a proper objection and there is evidence sufficient to create a factual dispute (People v Cefaro, 23 N.Y.2d 283, 288-289). No such evidence was adduced here.

Defendant's contention that several comments in the prosecutor's summation deprived him of a fair trial is unpreserved for failure to object thereto at trial (CPL 470.05; People v. Montrose, 155 A.D.2d 376, lv denied 75 N.Y.2d 870).

Concur — Murphy, P.J., Ellerin, Wallach and Smith, JJ.


Summaries of

People v. Goodson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jan 30, 1992
179 A.D.2d 584 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)
Case details for

People v. Goodson

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. LARRY GOODSON, Also…

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

Date published: Jan 30, 1992

Citations

179 A.D.2d 584 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)

Citing Cases

People v. Luis

A defendant is entitled to a charge regarding a claimed defense, even if it is inconsistent with some other…

People v. Herr

Defendant further contends that Supreme Court erred in refusing to charge the jury that it must determine…