From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Hamma

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 26, 1987
130 A.D.2d 763 (N.Y. App. Div. 1987)

Opinion

May 26, 1987

Appeal from the County Court, Nassau County (O'Shaughnessy, J.).


Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, and the case is remitted to the County Court, Nassau County, for further proceedings pursuant to CPL 460.50 (5).

The court did not err in charging that the defendant was an interested witness (see, People v. Ochs, 3 N.Y.2d 54; People v Stokes, 117 A.D.2d 693, lv denied 67 N.Y.2d 890) or in refusing to charge that the People's witnesses were interested as a matter of law (see, People v. Suarez, 125 A.D.2d 350; People v. Reyes, 118 A.D.2d 666, lv denied 67 N.Y.2d 1056). Nor did the court err in denying the defendant's request that it use "moral certainty" language in its otherwise proper circumstantial evidence charge (see, People v. Ford, 66 N.Y.2d 428, 441; People v. Sanchez, 61 N.Y.2d 1022). Moreover, the sentence imposed was not excessive. Thompson, J.P., Niehoff, Kunzeman and Harwood, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Hamma

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 26, 1987
130 A.D.2d 763 (N.Y. App. Div. 1987)
Case details for

People v. Hamma

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. CHARLES HAMMA…

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

Date published: May 26, 1987

Citations

130 A.D.2d 763 (N.Y. App. Div. 1987)

Citing Cases

People v. Hickey

05; People v. Smith, 134 A.D.2d 466; People v Rosado, 79 A.D.2d 666). In any event, the charge was balanced…

People v. Hernandez

In any event, this contention is without merit (see, People v Colon, 71 N.Y.2d 410). The court did not err in…