Legal Opinion

People v. Denham

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Decided January 13, 1992PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the Court

We reject the defendant’s contention that the court’s Allen charge (see, Allen v United States, 164 US 492) was coercive. A trial court may properly discharge its responsibility by requesting the jurors to make one final effort to review the evidence and reach a verdict if they can (see, People v Pagan, 45 NY2d 725, 727). The court’s Allen charge was a reasonable request for the jury to continue its deliberations (see, People v Demery, 60 AD2d 606).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Kearse, 144 AD2d 495; People v Udzinski,…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Allen v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1896
  2. People v. UdzinskiAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1989
  3. People v. PaganNew York Court of Appeals · 1978
  4. People v. DemeryAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1977
  5. People v. KearseAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1988

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. People v. DrummondAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2016

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API