From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Walton

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 10, 1995
220 A.D.2d 548 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)

Opinion

October 10, 1995

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Dunlop, J.).


Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

On appeal, the defendant asserts that the court committed error in its preliminary instructions and in its final charge to the jury regarding the burden of proof. The defendant failed to object to the instructions or charges now claimed to have been improper, and thus his arguments regarding these instructions and charges are unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05). In any event, a review of the record demonstrates that the court adequately instructed and charged the jury in the fundamentals of the law and the burden of proof. The jury, hearing the whole charge, "would gather from its language the correct rules which should be applied in arriving at [a] decision" (People v. Russell, 266 N.Y. 147, 153; People v. Canty, 60 N.Y.2d 830).

Finally, the sentence imposed was neither harsh nor excessive under the circumstances (see, People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80). Balletta, J.P., Rosenblatt, Ritter and Pizzuto, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Walton

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 10, 1995
220 A.D.2d 548 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
Case details for

People v. Walton

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. RODNEY WALTON…

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

Date published: Oct 10, 1995

Citations

220 A.D.2d 548 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
632 N.Y.S.2d 212

Citing Cases

People v. Michael Dell'aera

The defendant's remaining challenge to the adequacy of the County Court's response to a jury note requesting…

People v. Lauderdale

Even though the trial court's justification charge was taken nearly verbatim from the model charge, this…