From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Smith

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 30, 2000
276 A.D.2d 810 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)

Opinion

Argued September 29, 2000

October 30, 2000.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Marrus, J.), rendered May 9, 1996, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

M. Sue Wycoff, New York, N.Y. (Elizabeth B. Emmons of counsel), for appellant.

Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove and Camille O'Hara Gillespie of counsel), for respondent.

Before: CORNELIUS J. O'BRIEN, J.P., LEO F. McGINITY, DANIEL F. LUCIANO, ROBERT W. SCHMIDT, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant has not preserved for appellate review his contentions regarding the court's instructions to the jury on the presumption of innocence and burden shifting (see, CPL 470.05; People v. Cahill, 220 A.D.2d 608). In any event, the defendant's argument is without merit. When viewed as a whole, the court's charge was proper (see, People v. Henderson, 259 A.D.2d 495; People v. Custodio, 243 A.D.2d 576; People v. Cahill, supra).

The defendant's remaining contentions are unpreserved for appellate review and, in any event, without merit.


Summaries of

People v. Smith

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 30, 2000
276 A.D.2d 810 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
Case details for

People v. Smith

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE, ETC., RESPONDENT, v. WILLIE SMITH, APPELLANT. (IND. NO…

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

Date published: Oct 30, 2000

Citations

276 A.D.2d 810 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
715 N.Y.S.2d 154

Citing Cases

People v. Linares

Defendant's remaining contention pertaining to the City Court's instructions to the jury is not preserved for…

People v. Linares

Upon a review of the record, we are satisfied that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence…