People v. Denham
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
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
- Allen v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1896
- People v. UdzinskiAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1989
- People v. PaganNew York Court of Appeals · 1978
- People v. DemeryAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1977
- People v. KearseAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1988
3Cited by1 opinion
- People v. DrummondAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2016