From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Richardson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Oct 6, 1992
186 A.D.2d 373 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)

Opinion

October 6, 1992

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Bronx County (Robert L. Cohen, J.).


Defendant's contention that the court improperly failed to give a circumstantial evidence charge is unpreserved for appellate review as a matter of law (People v Baez, 183 A.D.2d 481). Were we to review this contention in the interest of justice, we would conclude that defendant was not entitled to such a charge, because the evidence was not wholly circumstantial (People v Barnes, 50 N.Y.2d 375, 379-380). Here, the officer present at the crime scene observed defendant as he "backed out" of the victim's burglarized apartment. In view of this direct evidence and the strong inferences to be drawn therefrom, a circumstantial evidence charge was not required (People v Trail, 172 A.D.2d 320, lv denied 78 N.Y.2d 975).

Concur — Ellerin, J.P., Wallach, Ross and Kassal, JJ.


Summaries of

People v. Richardson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Oct 6, 1992
186 A.D.2d 373 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)
Case details for

People v. Richardson

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. GERALD RICHARDSON…

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

Date published: Oct 6, 1992

Citations

186 A.D.2d 373 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)

Citing Cases

People v. White

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Alvin Schlesinger, J.). Defendant was not entitled to a…

People v. Rogers

We agree with defendant, however, that the court erred in its charge to the jury. The People's case depended…