From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Martinez

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jan 21, 1999
257 A.D.2d 479 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)

Opinion

January 21, 1999.

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Bruce Allen, J.).


Since the plain meaning of the presumption contained in Penal Law § 265.15 (4) renders the presumption applicable to felony gun possession charges, the court properly instructed the jury thereon ( see, People v. McKenzie, 67 N.Y.2d 695; People v. Williams, 235 A.D.2d 267, lv denied 89 N.Y.2d 1042). Viewed as a whole, the court's charge properly instructed the jury on the permissive nature of the presumption, and emphasized that the burden of proving every element of the crimes charged, including intent, remained with the prosecution ( see, People v. Hodja, 216 A.D.2d 415, lv denied 86 N.Y.2d 796). The court properly declined to charge specifically regarding the effect of rebuttal evidence. Such an instruction was not necessary to explain the application of the law to the facts and thus would result in an improper marshaling of the evidence offered by the defense and risk suggesting to the jury a shift in the burden of proof ( see, People v. Knox, 87 A.D.2d 504, lv denied 56 N.Y.2d 653).

By abandoning an issue, the resolution of which had been deferred by the court, defendant failed to preserve his current claims of error regarding the admission of evidence that allegedly suggested uncharged crimes ( see, People v. Cobos, 57 N.Y.2d 798, 802; People v. Pressley, 216 A.D.2d 202, lv denied 86 N.Y.2d 800; People v. Arroyo, 209 A.D.2d 328, lv denied 85 N.Y.2d 859), and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. Were we to review these claims, we would find that defendant could not have been prejudiced by this evidence, by the absence of an advance ruling on its admissibility, or by the absence of limiting instructions, which were never requested ( see, People v. Williams, 50 N.Y.2d 996, 998-999; People v. Ramos, 220 A.D.2d 330, lv denied 87 N.Y.2d 976).

Defendant's pro se claim challenging the sufficiency of the evidence presented before the Grand Jury is not reviewable on appeal ( People v. Cerda, 236 A.D.2d 292).

Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Nardelli, Rubin and Mazzarelli, JJ.


Summaries of

People v. Martinez

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jan 21, 1999
257 A.D.2d 479 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
Case details for

People v. Martinez

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. ANTHONY MARTINEZ…

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

Date published: Jan 21, 1999

Citations

257 A.D.2d 479 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
684 N.Y.S.2d 521

Citing Cases

State of N.Y. v. Alexander

15 (3) that the defendant possessed the firearm was rebuttable and to emphasize that the burden of proof…

People v. Waters

Here, County Court instructed the jury, on two occasions, that the presumption was permissive and that the…